Skip to main content

Full text of "Model for nurse faculty research productivity"

See other formats



'■^ -^ 






'■: \ 

Copyright 1987 

- ■"-- - by 

Rose Theresa Kearney 

To James and Helen Kearney, 
with eternal gratitude, love, and respect. 

< r 


Many people and influences have contributed to the culmination of 
this project. Members of my dissertation committee have demonstrated 
professionalism and concern in all of our interactions. A special word 
of thanks is extended to Linda E. Moody, Ph.D., advisor and committee 
chairperson, for her tireless assistance at all phases of the research 
process. To the other committee members, Sally A. Hutchinson, Ph.D., 
Lois J. Malasanos, Ph.D., M. Josephine Snider, Ed.D., and James L. 
Wattenbarger, Ed.D., I wish to express my gratitude for their 
encouragement, guidance, and generous contributions of time for advice, 
committee meetings, and review of materials. Dr. Linda M. Crocker, an 
earlier member of my dissertation committee, also provided invaluable 
assistance in the preparatory phase of the research proposal. 

The deans at the leading academic institutions included in this 
study were particularly helpful. Without their assistance in 
identifying leading researchers and allowing field interviews at the 
institutions, this research could never have been done. I am extremely 
indebted to the established nurse researchers interviewed for sharing 
information and insights. These outstanding nurse researchers, who so 
freely gave of their time and experience, have contributed to a greater 
understanding of scholarly productivity in academia and the research 


This project has been made possible in part through funding from a 
variety of sources. These financial sources include Sigma Theta Tau, 
the International Honor Society of Nursing; Alpha Theta Chapter of 
Sigma Theta Tau at the University of Florida; and the Department of 
Health and Human Services Nurse Traineeship which provided initial 
tuition coverage for doctoral coursework. Data analysis for the 
project was aided with the provision of computer time and resources by 
Dr. Helen A. Dunn through the Dean's Research Award at the L.S.U. 
Medical Center School of Nursing. I would like to include a special 
note of appreciation to Dr. Raymond Calvert for his assistance and 
skill in preparation of the illustrations included in this work. 

The support of friends and family was a major factor in this 
project's completion. Although too numerous to mention all, two 
friends deserve particular reference: Florence Taylor and Jeremie 
Sherman. Their friendship and encouragement know no bounds. 

Finally, and most of all, the unswerving confidence and support of 
my parents, James and Helen Kearney, were immeasurable throughout my 
doctoral studies and research and were the mainstays for the completion 
of this project. Their lifelong influence and tolerance of late night 
telephone calls made me continue when I was otherwise inclined to stop. 
The intelligence, patience, prayers, and unconditional acceptance of my 
parents were the foundations for this work. 


V- Page 







Introduction ^ 

Research Problem ^ 

Research Questions 3 

Definition of Terms 4 

Assumptions and Delimitations 6 

Theoretical Framework "7 

Inquiry Paradigm ^ 

Substantive Paradigm ^ 

Significance 22 

Summary ^' 


Scholarly Productivity 29 

Institutional Productivity 29 

Individual Productivity 30 

Measures of Productivity 61 

Eminence ^^ 

Institutional Eminence 67 

Individual Eminence 70 

Cumulative Advantage 72 

Recommendations from the Literature 75 

Summary 76 


Study Development 77 

Environments 78 

Research Design 83 

Subjects S3 


Instruments ^^ 

Instrument Development 88 

Pilot Study ^3 

Data Collection Protocol 94 

Data Analysis Procedures 95 

Summary -^^^ 


Individual Characteristics 103 

Environmental Characteristics 170 

Examples of Successful Research 189 

Respondent' Reactions to Preliminary Report 210 

Summary ^^-^ 


A Model for Nurse Faculty Research Productivity 212 

Findings for Research Questions 220 

Summary ^^^ 


Conclusions 251 

Recommendations and Implications 257 

/ Summary 267 

V • ' '-■ J ■ ' ''■■■■ '.i '■ ' 










1. General Classification of Variables by General 

1 Q 

System Activity -^' 

2. Preliminary Classification of System Variables 20 

3. Leading Schools of Nursing Listed by Literature Source ... 82 

4. Schools of Nursing Selected for Study Based on Previous 

Studies ^^ 

5. Selected Characteristics of the Study Sites 85 

6. Research Questions with Associated Variable Categories 

and Instruments °' 

7. Organizational Scheme for Presentation of Findings, 

by Variables and Instruments 102 

8. Demographic Characteristics of Established Nurse 

Researcher Sample ^^^ 

9. Occupational and Educational Background of Parents of 

Established Nurse Researchers 106 


Sibling Influences for Established Nurse Researchers .... 107 

11. Antecedents and Characteristics for the Successful Nurse 

Researcher, Reported by Established Nurse Researchers. . . 110 

12. Educational Preparation and Clinical Specialty Areas .... 117 

13. Advantages of Postdoctoral Studies 121 

14. Limitations to Postdoctoral Education in Nursing 122 

15. Positional Variables for Established Nurse Researchers . . . 123 

16. Program Assignment and Primary Contractual Responsibilities, 

Reported in Percentages 124 

17. Weekly Averages of Job-Related Activities Reported in Hours. 125 

18. Measures of Productivity for Established Nurse Researcher 

Sample 1^^ 


19. Correlation Matrix for Productivity Measures 136 

20. Additional Forms of Productivity Reported by Established 

Nurse Researchers: Off -Site Consultation, Editorial 

Boards, and Awards and Honors Received 137 

21. Reported Authorship Preferences 142 

22. Network Varicibles of Professional Societies and 

Professional Journals ^^^ 

23. Communication with Colleagues 146 

24. Network Activities Valuable for the Nurse Researcher .... 149 

25. Research Preferences Reported by Established Nurse 

Researchers ^^° 

26. Activities Used by Established Nurse Researchers for 

Further Development of Research Expertise 169 

27. General Organizational Characteristics of the Study Sites. . 172 

28. Graduate Nursing Degree Offerings at Study Sites 173 

29. Characteristics of Academic Nursing Units 173 

30. Rankings of Institutional Missions as Perceived by 

Established Nurse Researchers 175 

31. Established Nurse Researchers' Perceptions of Necessary 

and Desirable Resources for Research Activities 181 

32. Financial Resources for Research at Study Sites 186 

33. Resources Available for Faculty Research at Study Sites. . . 188 

34. Funding Awards for Selected Successful Research Projects . . 190 

35. Dissemination of Results for Examples of Successful 

Research Projects 1^1 

36. Further Studies which have Evolved from the Successful 

Research Project 200 

37. Descriptive Analysis for Items on Part II of the PSR 


38. Correlation Matrix for PSR Items with Little Relationship 

to Examples of Successful Research 202 


39. PSR Items on Methodological Rigor 205 

40. PSR Items on Importance to the Discipline 205 

41. Correlation Matrix for PSR Items on Importance to the 

Discipline 2*^^ 

42. PSR Items on Personal Interest and Motivation, 


■ H 



43. PSR Items on Real World Implications 208 


' Page 

1. Organizational model of knowledge development at a university 

school/college of nursing 18 

2. A model for nurse faculty research productivity 213 




Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School 
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the 
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 


By ■ 

Rose Theresa Kearney 

May, 1987 

Chairman: Linda E. Moody ' ^ 

Major Department: Nursing " ' ^ 

Generation, dissemination, and utilization of research is central 
to advancing the knowledge base for the discipline of nursing. The 
purposes of this exploratory study were to discover how a sample of 
nationally known nurse researchers produce and reproduce knowledge for 
the discipline, identify individual and environmental variables related 
to successful research outcomes, and generate a theoretical model for 
research productivity. 

An organizational systems model and a naturalistic inquiry paradigm 
guided the research design and the development of the theoretical model 
for faculty research productivity. Multiple data collection methods and 
sources were used. The primary source of data was through on-site, 
field interviews with established nurse researchers at seven 
universities that have been identified as leading academic institutions 
in the United States with graduate nursing programs. Pre-interview data 
were collected by questionnaires to obtain a profile of the nurse 
researchers and academic institutions. The field interviews were 


conducted with a purposive sample of 21 nationally knovm nurse 
researchers who met the definitional criteria for established nurse 
researcher. r ■-■'• 

Interviews with established nurse researchers were taped, 
transcribed, and submitted to ethnographic analysis for domains and 
themes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze biographical and 
institutional data. 

From the interviews, the following significant individual variables 
were identified for the model of research productivity: character 
traits (interest, commitment and motivation, perseverence, creativity, 
independence, ethics) ; knowledge (knowledge base, opportunities for 
learning, awareness of when consulation and collaboration was 
appropriate); and skills (mental abilities, interpersonal skills, 
organizational skills, articulation skills) . The most significant 
environmental variables of the model were as follows: academic and 
disciplinary expectations for scholarly productivity; administrative 
support for nurse faculty's development and involvement in programs of 
research through workload allocations, provision of resources for 
research, and faculty development; tangible resources to structure and 
foster environments that capitalize on resources available in academic 
nursing programs; and collegial support. 

Recommendations from this study addressed further application and 
testing of the model of research productivity within academic nursing 
programs and extension of the research to include clinical settings of 
nurse researchers. • 




Research and scholarship are vital to the sciences and the 
professions in accretion of knowledge. Bloch (1985) has stated that 
"the product of research is science or knowledge" (p. 127) . Nursing 
has become increasingly concerned with scholarship and the extension of 
its knowledge base through research and theory development since the 
1970s. Nurses are being prepared in increasing numbers at the graduate 
level and academic nursing programs are moving more in concert with 
other disciplines in academia for the scholarly expectations of faculty 
and students. Scientific inquiry is essential for providing a 
knowledge base for nursing practice. As proposed by the American 
Nurses Association Cabinet on Nursing Research (1985) , "the future of 
nursing practice and, ultimately, health care in this country depend on 
nursing research designed to constantly generate an up-to-date 
organized body of nursing knowledge" (p. 1) . Further, significant 
findings from nursing research must be disseminated for utilization and 
progress. Generation, dissemination, and utilization of knowledge are 
assumed to be affected by certain antecedents, intervening factors, and 
outcomes of the research process and the individual researchers. 
Identification of variables that influence research activities will 

help to promote scholarly behaviors and stimulate further development 
of nursing knowledge. As Batey (1981) has indicated, "amassing all of 
the potential indicators of research productivity can be considered as 
a goal to be achieved by any field of study concerned with advancing 
its knowledge base either for the sake of that knowledge or for the use 
to which that knowledge may be placed" (p. 54). 

Development of environments that support nursing inquiry has been 
stressed as a goal by the American Nurses' Association Cabinet on 
Nursing Research (1985). Brimmer et al. (1983) have stated that 
"salient features of educational programs and work settings must be 
identified and their relationship to scholarly productivity explored" 
(p. 165), Fawcett (1984) has identified the elimination of obstacles 
to research as a future hallmark of success in nursing research. The 
scholarly influence of leading researchers and the socialization of 
neophytes are critical factors to eliminate such obstacles (Fawcett, 
1984) . According to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing 
(Copp, 1981) , even in a decade marked by competing needs and scarce 
resources, nursing research must be viewed and promoted as a priority 

(p. 2). 

Established nurse researchers have those characteristics that have 
led to successful research endeavors. Identifying individual 
characteristics considered advantageous by established nurse 
researchers addresses the need for role models expressed by Brimmer et 
al. (1983). In a study of the environmental conditions for productive 
scientists in research and development departments, Pelz and Andrews 

(1976) reported that "effective" scientists, although similarly 
motivated, differed from their less effective colleagues in the styles 
and strategies with which they approached their work (p. 7) . The 
testimony of established nurse researchers may reveal their individual 
styles, strategies, and environments which, ultimately, affects the 
quality and type of nursing care to health care consumers. 

Research Problem 
The primary purpose of this research has been to determine 
individual and environmental characteristics of leading nurse 
researchers that are related to the generation, dissemination, and 
utilization of successful research. For the purposes of this study, 
nurse researchers in academic nursing settings are considered 
established nurse researchers following nomination by their respective 
Dean based on their contributions to the discipline of nursing. The 

primary research question for this exploratory investigation was as 

'I '■■ ■ - ■ '■ ■ 

follows: ■ ^ 

What are the individual and environmental characteristics of 

established nurse researchers that are identified as important to 

scholarly productivity that demonstrate an influence on the 

generation, dissemination, and utilization of successful research? 

Research Questions 

Specific questions for this exploratory study were as follows: 

(1) What precursors (antecedents) and individual characteristics 

do established nurse researchers identify as contributing 

to and influencing successful research outcomes and other 

scholarly endeavors? 

(2) What environmental variables do established nurse 
researchers identify as being essential to the support and 
success of their research and the research process? 

(3) How do established nurse researchers engage in linkage or 
network activities (intramurally and extramural ly) to 
influence the dissemination and utilization of research 

/ . ' Definition of Terms 
The following terms have been defined for the purposes of this 
study. ■ .■. j 

Established nurse researchers are leading researchers in academic 
nursing settings who have made recognizable contributions to the 
scholarly discipline of nursing. Criteria for the selection of 
established nurse researchers include all of the following: has been 
awarded an earned doctorate, has an existing program of funded 
research, has provided leadership to a research team, has recently 
published research findings in scholarly nursing journals, has had past 
findings utilized in nursing settings or used in research replications, 
and is employed full-time at an identified leading academic 
institution. In addition, the researcher demonstrates several of the 
following characteristics: has presented research papers at the 
national or international level, has received a regional/national 
research award, and has current membership in the ANA Council of Nurse 
Researchers or other professional research societies. 

career age is the number of years of full-time academic 
appointments which have been held by the established nurse researcher 
in a college or university setting. 

Domains are symbolic categories that share at least one feature of 
meaning in ethnographic data (Spradley, 1979, p. 100). For the 
purposes of this study, domains were developed as symbolic categories 
from the verbal and written comments provided by at least 40 percent of 

the respondents. 

Environments are contextual settings that include the school or 
college of nursing, the university, the nursing discipline, and society. 

Individual characteristics are those individual traits demonstrated, 
exhibited, or identified by an established nurse researcher and include 
personal, professional, positional, productivity, network, and research 
orientation variables. . '; •. 

Leading academic institutions are top-ranked institutions 
identifiable in two or more of the rating schemes (Blau & Margulies, 
1974-75; Chamings, 1984; Hayter, 1984; Hayter & Rice, 1979; Margulies & 
Blau, 1973) that have appeared in the literature. Institutions 
selected as sites for investigation of established nurse researchers 
shall be considered as representative of leading academic institutions 
rather than associated with any definitive ranking of reputation or 
scholarly productivity. 

Research includes all forms of research activities including 
basic, applied and practice research, whether qualitative or 
quantitative in nature, relevant to practice, professional, 
administrative, or educational issues in nursing. 


Scholarly productivity is defined as contributions to nursing 
including research activities, publications, presentations, recognition 
through awards, positions on editorial boards, and consultations. 

Successful research includes activities/outcomes completed that 
have received positive acceptance by reviewers and colleagues, perhaps 
been cited in work by others, generated positive feedback from readers, 
and been recognized as making a major contribution to the field. 

Themes are developed in ethnographic analysis as categories 
derived from domains to exhibit broad principles from qualitative 
responses on a selcted topic. Spradley (1979) has referred to themes 
as cognitive principles which are common assiunptions about the nature 
of the experience of respondents (p. 186). >■ : . 

Assumptions and Delimitations 

Assumptions ' i ■ j, { , , .■ ■ , .. .A ; ' 

For the purposes of this study, the following assumptions were 

specified: ^ '' ^ 

(1) The development of scientific knowledge and scholarly 
productivity by nurses is affected by multiple individual ; 
and environmental factors. 

(2) Research and scholarly activity occur in certain established 
institutions that can be identified through factors related to 
institutional reputation. 

(3) Generation and dissemination of knowledge occur within the 
tradition of the tripartite mission of research, teaching, 
and service of the modern American university. 

(4) A large proportion of established nurse researchers are employed 
at leading academic institutions. 

(5) Established nurse researchers are assumed to share similar 
characteristics vital to successful research outcomes. 

(6) Established nurse researchers are attracted to leading 
academic institutions and, in turn, attract other resources 
and researchers to these environments. 

(7) Characteristics of established nurse researchers and their 
environments synergistically affect the development of 
scientific nursing knowledge. 


The study is delimited to established nurse researchers at leading 
academic institutions which restricts the full range of research and 
scholarly behaviors exhibited by the general population of nurse 
scholars. Outstanding researchers may not be limited to the 
institutions selected for study but have been assumed to be present in 
greater numbers in these environments. 

Theoretical Framework 
Inquiry Paradigm 

The research was based on a naturalistic inquiry paradigm. Lincoln 
(1985) has described the naturalistic paradigm with the focus on 
environmental context and environmental shapers to "exhibit patterns 
and webs of influence that in turn select and are selected by 
participants on the scene in mutually reinforcing ways" (p. 141) . Cuba 
(1985) has characterized this paradigm along seven dimensions. 

complexity, heterarchy, holography, interdeterminacy, mutual causality, 
morphogenesis, and perspective, with the following axioms: 

(1) Multiple constructed realities should be studied holistically in 
order to achieve a level of understanding; ' 

(2) Interaction and influences occur between inquirer and 

(3) The aim of inquiry is to develop a model of knowledge using 
working hypotheses with individual cases; 

(4) Multiple interacting factors and processes provide the nature of 
explanation; and 

(5) Inquiry is value-bound, influenced by the inquirer, inquiry and 
substantive paradigms, society, and the interaction of these 
factors (pp. 85-86) . • ,, 

Axioms of naturalistic inquiry are relevant to the investigation with 
the assumption that the development of scientific knowledge and 
scholarly productivity by nurses is affected by multiple individual and 
environmental or organizational factors. Pranulis (1984) investigated 
the functional significance of selected aspects of the research 
environments at university schools of nursing. Further, Pranulis 
(1984) assumed there was "an interaction between the person and the 
environment that is influential in molding the person's identity and 
subsequent behavior" (p. 11). In an earlier study, Batey (1978) 
investigated research development in university schools of nursing 
through description of organizational structure and process. g'> 

Substantive Paradigm 

The substantive paradigm supports the dimensions and axioms of 
naturalistic inquiry and is an adaptation of two models (Havelock, 
1971; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979) based on the production of scientific 
knowledge and organizational theory. Each of these models will be 
described prior to the presentation of the theoretical framework 
adapted for this study. 
Knowledge flow structure 

Havelock (1971) has used a system and process model to depict an 
organization with subunits containing the major concepts of role and 
linkage. The organizational subunit contains a knowledge source and 
through linkages between roles and linkages among subunits and 
organizations the processes of dissemination and utilization flow to 
the knowledge user. At each linkage point in the knowledge flow 
system, a knowledge flow transfer process takes place for both a 
micro-perspective (within the individual) and a macro-perspective 
(among individuals and organizations) (Havelock, 1971, p. 1-13). 
Utilization is considered as a process within the individual using the 
concepts of personality factors, cognitive and attitudinal variables, 
and the various specific characteristics of people which have been 
found to be related to the receptivity of new knowledge (Havelock, 
1971, p. 1-12). Then as a building process, the two-person transfer 
situation occurs with two persons, each with their own separate 
identity and set of motives, resistances, values and understanding; 
differences between receiver and sender constitute potential barriers 


to dissemination and utilization of knowledge (Havelock, 1971, p. 

1-14) . The perspective is similarly broadened to an 

interorganizational perspective. Communication is a major process 

thread in this model. 

The "knowledge flow structure" is described as the sequence of 

organizational roles and mechanisms through which knowledge is 

processed in an organization from input to output (Havelock, 1971, p. 

2-28) . To look at nursing research, one must consider the 

macro-perspective. Havelock (1971) has identified four principal 

points of the macro system: • * . ■ 

First, the university is the primary source, storage 
point, and cultural carrier of expert knowledge in all 
fields, basic and applied. However, the university 
does not take any active responsibility for diffusing 
this knowledge or ensuring that it gets used. Second, 
this responsibility seems to reside in the three sectors 
of the practice world, the professions, the product 
organizations, and the service organizations. Third, 
the consumer's power to influence his would-be "helpers" 
in the practice-world and the research world is very 
limited; this consumer powerlessness is to the detriment 
of the system as a whole. However, there are some signs 
that the picture is changing for the better. Finally, 
there are some integrating forces, some organizations 
and individuals who are working for a greater coordi- 
nation of the total process from the university labo- 
ratory to the classroom and the hospital bed. (pp. 3-2 - 3-3) 

This description can be applied to scholarly nursing from the research 

orientation at the university level, to transmission of knowledge to 

students in the classroom and clinical practice arena, to dissemination 

efforts with practitioners, and the integrating forces of our leading 

nursing professional and scholarly organizations, professional 

meetings, and journal publications. 


Organizational systems 

Kast and Rosenzweig (1979) view organizations as open, 

sociotechnical systems composed of five subsystems: goals and values, 

technical, psychosocial, structural, and managerial. Inputs of energy, 

information, and materials are received from the environment, 

transformed, and returned to the environment. The organization is not 

simply a technical or social system but the structuring and integrating 

of humans around various activities (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979, p. 108). 

Kast and Rosenzweig (1979) have described the internal organization of 

their model with five major subsystems as follows: 

The organizational goals and values are one of the 
more important of these subsystems. The organization 
takes many of its values from the broader sociocultural 
environment. A basic premise is that the organization 
as a subsystem of the society must accomplish certain 
goals that are determined by the broader system. ... 
The technical subsystem refers to the knowledge required 
for the performance of tasks, including the techniques 
used in the transformation of inputs into outputs. ... 
Every organization has a psychosocial subsystem that is 
composed of individuals and groups in interaction. It 
consists of individual behavior and motivation, status 
and role relationships, group dynamics, and influence 
systems. It is also affected by sentiments, values, 
attitudes, expectations, and aspirations of the people 
in the organization. . . . Structure involves the ways 
in which the tasks of the organization are divided 
(differentiation) and coordinated (integration) . . . 
The managerial subsystem spans the entire organization 
by relating the organization to its environment, setting 
the goals, developing comprehensive, strategic, and 
operational plans designing the structure, and estab- 
lishing control processes. (pp. 109-110) 

This theoretical structure is particularly applicable to a 

university system with the goals of the generation and transmission of 

knowledge. An underlying assumption of the Kast and Rosenzweig (1979) 


model is that there should be a congruence between the organization and 
its environment and among the various subsystems (p. 115) . Use of the 
adaptive-organic organizational form is appropriate for research and 
scholarly productivity in a university setting with the following 
patterns of relationships: 

1. The environment is relatively uncertain and turbulent 

2. The goals are diverse and changing 

3. The technology is complex and dynamic 

4. There are many nonroutine activities in which creativity ;. 
and innovation are important 

5. Heuristic decision-making processes are utilized and 
coordination and control occur through reciprocal adjust- 
ments. The system is less hierarchical and more flexible. 

(Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979, p. 116) 

Further, these relationships are congruent with a naturalistic inquiry 

Use of the five subsystems is also applicable to the generation of 
nursing knowledge in a university environment. Research, creativity, 
and scholarly productivity are esteemed values and goals in both 
nursing and higher education. Kast and Rosenzweig (1979) have stated 
that the "social role of the university is the creation and 
dissemination of knowledge. . . . and the university has the special 
function of creating new knowledge through research" (pp. 519-520) . 
This is further described with three predominant institutional goals: 

1. The dissemination of knowledge to students. . . 
primarily done through the teaching function; 

2. The creation and advancement of knowledge. . . 
accomplished through the research activities of the 
faculty and specialized staffs; and 

3. Service to society. . . [which] establishes the norm 
that knowledge creation and dissemination should be 
useful. (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979, p. 520) 


Two major concepts of the psychosocial subsystem are roles and 
status. The concept of role "describes the behaviors the individual is 
expected to exhibit while occupying a given position in a societal or 
organizational system" (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979, p. 261) • Nurses as 
university faculty are expected to exhibit behaviors related to the 
roles of researcher, educator, and practitioner. These three roles 
relate to the generation, dissemination, and utilization of knowledge. 
To what measure these roles are congruent with the university mission 
for research, teaching, and service depend upon the mission and its 
application at the university, college, and departmental levels. In 
addition, as professionals, nurses are expected to engage in research 
activities appropriate to their educational preparation. A useful 
typology to maximize participation and individual role responsibilities 
was developed by the American Nurses' Association (1981) which relates 
educational preparation with expected research activities. Fawcett 
(1985) has indicated that this typology does not provide exclusive 
categories in that some individuals are competent at higher levels of 
research performance when compared with educational level. This 
typology suggests the elimination of inappropriate expectations yet 
stresses the involvement of all nurses in some form of research 

An important aspect of the model and the psychosocial subsystem is 
that Kast and Rosenzweig (1979) have denied the concept of role 
conflict for faculty and have supported the duality of teaching and 
research: "university professors have a dual role of teaching and 


research, and they cannot adequately fulfill their responsibilities 
without giving attention to both .... both activities are vital to 
the basic goals of the institution" (p. 530) . 

Status is the second major concept of the psychosocial subsystem. 
Status generally "refers to the ranking or stratification of people in 
a social system", yet in an organizational context, it refers to a 
specific hierarchical position (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979, pp. 260-261). 
In a university, status is evident with specific positions and academic 
rank. Two further forms of status are relevant to the study design: 
functional status and occupation prestige (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979). 
Functional status has been used to the focus on established nurse .. 
researchers with successful research and scholarly endeavors as 
particular career functions. Occupational prestige has also been used 
in the research design through the focus on established nurse 
researchers in leading schools of nursing. "Occupational prestige is 
important in the social system because it affects the power and 
influence of occupants of certain positions, as well as the amount of 
resources that society places at their disposal" (Kast & Rosenzweig, 
1979, p. 266) . Occupational prestige relates to the reward system of 
science and potential advantages that accrue through recognized 

The technical subsystem has two basic components: physical 
resources and accumulated knowledge. The accumulated knowledge is the 
means to accomplish tasks (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979, p. 195) . "Teaching 
and scholarly research are the primarily technical tasks of the system" 


(Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979, p. 521) . Research and scholarly productivity 
are dynamic and increase the degree of complexity in the system while 
providing valuable outputs to the environment, in particular the 
discipline of nursing, and ultimately the consumers of health care. 

The structural subsystem can be viewed through school and 
departmental structure and patterns of authority. The concept of a 
community of scholars is appropriate here in terms of decision-making 
and allocation of resources. Resources, rewards, and integration of 
activities are provided through the functioning of the managerial 
subsystem. "The managerial system spans the entire organization by 
directing the technology, organizing people and other resources, and 
relating the organization to its environment . . . human and physical 
resources are combined to achieve certain objectives" (Kast & 
Rosenzweig, 1979, p. Ill) . . 

Both of the systems models presented are extensions of earlier 
models. Influences from Talcott Parsons and Robert Me.rton are 
apparent. Havelock's (1971) application of the influence from the 
professions and the prominence of roles in social system theory are 
credited to Parsons. The concepts of values and linkages have been 
influenced by the work of Merton. More apparent is the influence from 
Parsons in the model by Kast and Rosenzweig. Managerial systems • 
concepts and concepts relating the structure and processes of the 
social system are credited to the work of Parsons. Merton' s influence 
is apparent in the development of the psychosocial subsystem. Some 
similarities are to be expected due to the application of open systems 


in the different models. The model by Havelock adds a further 
dimension through the focus on dissemination and utilization of 
findings. And, the model by Kast and Rosenzweig has expanded 
sociological systems to sociotechnical. 
Study framework 

Further adaptations are necessary for use of the models of 
Havelock (1971) and Kast and Rosenzweig (1979) with the area of concern 
of individual and environmental characteristics of established nurse 
researchers. The total university will not be the major focus but will 
provide an environmental influence, as will the profession of nursing 
and its organizations, values, goals, and prominent nurse researchers. 
The framework represents an open, organizational system of knowledge 
development in interaction with four environments: (1) the immediate 
environment of a university college/school of nursing containing the 
five subsystems of goals and values, psychosocial, technical, 
structural, and managerial; (2) the general organizational environment 
of the university; (3) the nursing disciplinary environment; and (4) 
the broad social environment. 

Inquiry for the study is organized by factors classified as 
personal, professional, positional, organizational, network, 
productivity, and research orientation. Preliminary classification of 
these variables was done following identification of pertinent 
variables related to scholarly productivity of college and university 
faculty appearing in the literature. For the most part, categorization 
of these factors was proposed based on main influence in the 
theoretical suprastructure. As an open system, other system structures 


are expected to be affected by these variables as well, but to a lesser 
degree than the structure identified with the variable. Variables for 
investigation have further been classified into input (antecedent), 
throughput (intervening), and output (consequence) variables. Table 1 
illustrates this general classification of variables. 

Figure 1 represents a combination of the models by Havelock (1971) 
and Kast and Rosenzweig (1979) for an open systems organizational 
framework for knowledge development and transmission. A continuous and 
cyclic process of knowledge flow from generation at the university 
college/school of nursing level proceeds to dissemination and 
utilization at the various environmental levels. The process proceeds 
from antecedents (inputs) to consequences (outputs) as knowledge 
builds, is processed, and revised with additional information or 
inputs. At the center of the process is the university college/school 
of nursing. The subsystems of interest occur at this level with 
particular unit characteristics to be investigated. 

Again, this is an open, interrelated structure and overlap of variables 
is to be expected in line with the naturalistic concepts of multiple 
reality, relationships, and causality. Further specification of system 
variables is assumed to occur following naturalistic inquiry. The 
preliminary classification of system variables is presented in Table 2. 

The university environment represents the next immediate ;',:;, 
environment to the college/school of nursing. Influences at this level 
occur from university administrative, policy, and operational 
influences which guide the college/school organization and operation. 



DISCIPLINARY ENVIRONMENT: Professional Organizations 

Professional Literature 
Nursing Service 





Figure 1. Organizational model of knowledge development at a university 
school/college of nursing. 

Note. From Organization and Management (p. 109) by F. E. Kast and 
3T~E. Rosenzweig, 1979, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright 1979 by 
McGraw-Hill. Adapted by permission. 


Table 1 

General Classification of Variables by General System Activity 



{ Intervening variables) 



Chronological age 

Marital status 

Number of dependents 

Race/ethnic origin 


Family background 

Place of birth 


Educational preparation 
Postdoctoral work 
Clinical specialty 
Career influences 
Career age 

Work habits 


Academic rank ' -.. 

Tenure status 

Years at current location 



Geographic location | 



Journal subscriptions 

Mentee relationships 


Early publications 

Research Orientation 

Program assignment 
Primary responsibility 
Job related activities 
Student/faculty ratios 

Characteristics of 

Research requirements 

r' J 

Communication with 

Mentor relationships 
Professional societies 

Publication habits 
Perceptions of success 

Importance and preferences 
Research habits 
Influences on scholarship 
Contributions to nursing 


other projects 


Table 2 

Preliminary Classification of System Variables 
System Structure Variables 

Goals and Values 







Positional: academic rank, tenure status 
Research Orientation: perceived importance, 

preferences for research, contributions to 

Productivity: perceptions of research success 

Personal: chronological age, marital status, 
number of dependents, race /ethnic origin, 
gender, family background, place of birth 

Professional: educational preparation, career 
influences, clinical specialty, career age 

Positional: years at current location, mobil- 
ity, position/title, program assignment, 
primary responsibility, job-related acts 

Productivity: early publications 

Organizational: school organization, program 

Research Orientation: scholarship influences 

Professional: postdoctoral work, work habits 
Positional: student/faculty ratios 
Research Orientation: research habits 
Productivity: publication habits 

Organizational: support for research, 
research requirements 

Organizational: geographic location, institu- 
tion type and sponsorship, primary mission, 
productive environmental characteristics, 
support services and resources 

Network: Communication with colleagues, 

mentor-mentee relationships, professional 
societies, journal subscriptions 

Productivity: type and rate of scholarly 


This level is one of generation of knowledge through research and 
dissemination through teaching and service functions. 

The next environmental division is the nursing disciplinary level 
which provides the professional orientation, specialization, and 
additional value structures of the university nursing faculty. 
Havelock (1971) has referred to this stratum as the practice world. 
The disciplinary environmental focus in this study will primarily be 
investigated through faculty interactions with professional 
organizations and societies, service organizations, and scholarly 
product organizations. Although this disciplinary environment is 
affected by generation at the interorganizational systems level, 
primary consideration will be given to dissemination and utilization of 


- ^.' .-■ 
The broader social environment reflects societal needs and values 

through the needs and potential needs of consumers of health care. 

Utilization of knowledge and origination of problems and needs are the 

primary influences from this environmental level. Linkages among all 

system parts are assumed as necessary for effectiveness and continuity. 

Generation of knowledge is to be investigated at the level of 

individual nurse faculty researchers. The flow of this knowledge from 

generation to dissemination will be the focus to explore individual and 

environmental factors that influence knowledge for the discipline of 




As professionals, nurses are expected to engage in research 

activities; research ultimately contributing to the body of knowledge. 

The Cabinet on Nursing Research of the American Nurses' Association 

(1985) has identified goals and strategies for nursing research 

priorities which address the needs for an increased supply of nurse 

scientists, enhanced research productivity, development of environments 

to support inquiry, and generation, dissemination, and utilization of 

scientific knowledge to guide practice. In a two-year national study 

of nurses with doctoral degrees for the American Nurses ' Association 

Cabinet on Nursing Research, Brimmer et al. (1983) indicated that there 

has been substantial growth in the number of nurses with doctoral 

degrees but a large number of these nurses were in the initial phase of 

socialization as scholars (Brimmer et al., 1983, p. 164). Brimmer et 

al. (1983) have therefore concluded 

The context in which new doctoral graduates find 
themselves during this formative stage is of critical 
significance for those seeking to develop roles as 
productive researchers. Since few nurses are 
employed primarily for the conduct of research and, 
in the aggregate, an average of only 12% of work 
time is reportedly focused on research activities, 
this provides a limited number of role models and 
little or no time for exposure to ongoing research 
activities in many work settings. (p. 164) 

Yet, research and other forms of scholarly productivity must be 

more than isolated events or products. Scholarly productivity must be 

toward some end; that end being contributing to the body of scientific 

knowledge and subject to dissemination and utilization. Development of 

programs of research, whether longitudinal, cross-sectional, or 


combination programs (Felton & Yeaworth, 1985), is one means for such a 

contribution. Felton and Yeaworth (1985) have defined such a program: 

a focused, long-term commitment to increasing 
research skills in a continuous manner, pursuing 
a truly significant problem further and further, 
applying procedures for conducting the inquiry, 
refining research methods, and modifying ways for 
making critical measurements of a variety of 
populations, conditions, or situations. (p. 187) 

Such a program can be demonstrated by committed researchers, especially 

leading nurse researchers. The question may then be raised as to the 

characteristics of such researchers and their environments in order to 

strengthen the cadre of nurse researchers and promote those 

environments conducive to such inquiry. 

Based on a review of the literature, an assumption of this study 

was that increased research and scholarly activity occur in certain 

established institutions that can be identified through factors related 

to institutional reputation. The university college/school of nursing 

has been selected as the organizational site for the study of 

established nurse researchers on the assumption that generation and 

dissemination of knowledge occur within the tradition of the tripartite 

mission of research, teaching, and service of the American university. 

Clark (1984) has advanced the organizational perspective and has 

stated, "knowledge is the common substance involved in activities of 

the system: research creates it, scholarship preserves, refines and 

modifies it, teaching and service disseminate it" (p. 107) . Murphy 

(1985) has stated, "a university setting can provide an intellectual 

community of scholars, physical resources, and the freedom of inquiry 


necessary for creative scientific work" (p. 104) . Further in the area 
of research, Havelock (1971) has proposed that the university-based 
professional school is the "key-bridging institution between research 
and practice" (p. 3-20) . Gortner (1983) has observed that "the modern 
university is the mainstay of important scientific activity in many 
fields" but nursing's progress as an academic discipline in the next 
decade is dependent on the university to house and nurture the 
fledgling science of nursing (p. 7) . 

Attention to the academic environment has implications for human 
and physical resource utilization as well as further development of the 
body of knowledge in nursing. Through greater knowledge of the 
individual and environmental characteristics of scholarly productivity, 
academic environments and individual faculty members can be developed 
for greater scholarly productivity. Academic nursing administrators 
will be provided with an increased understanding of how individual and 
environmental variables influence the research process and the success 
of nurse researchers, providing further implications for faculty 
evaluation and development. The influence of administrative functions 
and scholarly productivity is one consideration. In a study comparing 
the professional activities of nurse doctorates with other academic 
women, Lia-Hoagberg (1985) reported that nurse doctorates spend less 
time on research and scholarly writing, publish fewer journal articles, 
and present fewer papers at professional meetings (p. 158) . 

Another consideration for academic nursing administrators is the 
focus of research currently being conducted in relation to the funding 


priorities for clinical research in the newly established Center for 
Nursing Research at the national level. Pranulis (1984) found few of 
the nurse educators included in her sample involved in research which ■ 
could be classified as studies of clinical therapeutics (p. 190) , 
whereas a study by Brown, Tanner, and Padrick (1983) indicated an 
increase in clinical research in the literature over the past three 

Intramural support and expectations for scholarly productivity of 
faculty are a further consideration for academic nursing 
administrators. Nieswiadomy (1984) surveyed nurse educators from a 
variety of program types concerning their involvement in research and 
found that nurse educators reported only minimal support provided for 
research activities in their institutions (p. 56). Baird et al. (1985) 
surveyed baccalaureate schools of nursing and found that scholarly 
activity was considered highly important in evaluation for promotion 
and tenure in over 50 percent of the schools with an increasing 
importance given to scholarly criteria for faculty evaluation yet with 
variable interpretations of importance given to individual activities. 
An increased demand for scholarly productivity by faculty exists as 
nurse educators are held to the same expectations as faculty in other 
disciplines in the university. Greater knowledge is needed for faculty 
recruitment, evaluation, and development related to scholarly 
productivity. In addition, the quality of the research and related 
scholarly activities must be such that it contributes to the body of 
knowledge rather than solely toward individual promotion and tenure 


needs or valuable studies with limited dissemination. Further, the 
academic environment provides an arena for the transmission to students 
of skills and value systems associated with research for continuity and 
contribution to the body of nursing knowledge. The successful and 
innovative strategies of established nurse researchers provide a 
greater understanding of the individual and environmental factors that 
promote successful research outcomes and higher levels of scholarly 

Through her research concerning productive research environments, 
Batey (1981) has concluded that there are university schools of nursing 
coming to be known as centers for research through opportunities 
offered for faculty investigators as well as the research reported by 
selected faculty, but there is no school of nursing which can be 
considered a productive research organization (p. 56). Yet, Batey 
(1981) has provided several criteria for successful and productive 
university nursing research environments based on the findings of her 
earlier research. Batey (1978) focused her research on variables 
related to the environmental context within 12 schools of nursing with 
significant extramural funding. . 

Pranulis (1984) further extended Batey's work through her 
retrospective correlational study to describe the functional 
significance of the environment on nurse faculty research productivity. 
Pranulis used a broadened perspective to include other forms of 
scholarly productivity in addition to research activities. In her 
investigation, female faculty members with doctorates at ten leading 


schools responded to questionnaires on values orientation and 
environmental influences, while background information on the ten 
schools was obtained through telephone interviews with a resource 
person from each of the ten schools (Pranulis, 1984). "The nurse 
faculty member ' s identity as a nurse researcher was found to be the 
individual characteristic significantly associated with her research 
productivity" (Pranulis, 1984, p. 208). Pranulis (1984) presented 
findings to profile high versus low productive environments using four 
schools within her sampling of institutions based on mean productivity 
ratings of faculty, further supporting Batey's research. Further 
investigation is needed to explore how and why leading nurse 
researchers are successful and what environmental variables contribute 
to successful research outcomes. 

' ' ? ' ' ;-• Summary ' >- ~ . 
This exploratory study employed a naturalistic inquiry paradigm 
and an organizational systems substantive paradigm to analyze variables 
influencing the generation, dissemination, and utilization of 
successful research by established nurse researchers at leading 
academic institutions. This research has been aimed at yielding 
findings concerning (1) individual and contextual factors associated 
with scholarly productivity of leading nurse researchers; (2) optimal 
academic environments for research, thus extending the work of Batey 
(1978) and Pranulis (1984); and (3) strategies used by successful nurse 
researchers for effective dissemination and use of research findings, 
ultimately leading to knowledge accretion and improved nursing care. 


An overview of the research has been presented in this chapter, 
including the research problem and questions, definition of terms, 
assumptions and delimitations, the theoretical framework, and the 
significance of the study. Chapter II provides a review of related 
literature. Research methodology is included in Chapter III with 
discussions of the study development, research design, environments and 
subjects, instruments, and data collection and analysis procedures. 
Research findings are presented in Chapter IV and discussed in Chapter 
V. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in Chapter VI. 



This chapter contains a review of literature relevant to scholarly 
productivity. Scholarly productivity is an issue of concern to many 
disciplines in academia and the professions, with some areas studied at 
greater frequency. Batey (1981) has stated, "research productivity is 
the form through which the conduct and the achievement of the science 
of a discipline becomes evident" (p. 54) . Publication measures are 
often used to quantify research and other forms of scholarly activity. 
First, the literature will be reviewed broadly, by selected factors 
investigated, and by dependent measures used for assessment. Secondly, 
recommendations from literature specific to scholarship in academic 
nursing will be presented. Recommendations from previous studies in 
the literature will be included throughout the discussion. 

Scholarly Productivity 
Institutional Productivity • ' 

One avenue for investigation of scholarly productivity has focused 
on institutional productivity with publication productivity of the 
total faculty in a particular department or discipline as the 
predominant measure. Methodologies have included reviews of specified 
sets of journals for faculty publications in education (Eash, 1983; 
West, 1978), speech communications (McCallum, 1984), psychology (Cox & 
Catt, 1977), and nursing (Hayter & Rice, 1979; Hayter, 1984). 



Additional criteria with publication counts have been used in several 
studies. Eash (1983), who assumed "faculty productivity emphasizes the 
strength of institutional research" (p. 5), based productivity on 
papers presented, extramural funding received, and articles in 
specified, leading journals over a seven year period of time. In 
several studies proportional credit was awarded in the case of multiple 
authorship and/or institutional affiliation (Cox & Catt, 1977; Eash, 
1983; McCallum, 1984; West, 1978) while others considered credit to the 
institution only in the case of primary authorship (Hayter, 1984; 
Hayter & Rice, 1979). Silverman (1984) investigated publishing 
patterns in higher education journals but also considered institutional 
affiliation. In an attempt to qualify productivity, Glenn and Villemez 
(1970) developed a scale for faculty publications in sociology 
departments which weighted boo)cs (research/theory, textbook, edited) 
and specific disciplinary journals. Outcomes of these studies aimed at 
providing a rating for or awareness of productive sites in academia. 
Individual Productivity , - •■ 

Batey (1985) has observed that an organization acquires a 
reputation for scholarship through the explicit achievements of its 
. individual scientists (p. 489) . Numerous authors have attempted to 
correlate factors with individual scholarly productivity. Creswell 
.: (1985) has proposed a profile of productive researchers which has 
emerged from this literature in the past 40 years- 


A productive researcher is: (1) employed in a major 

university that rewards research and assigns ample , 

time for faculty to conduct research; (2) holds 

senior professorial rank, though performance may 

peak 10 years after the doctorate and again later 

toward the end of the career; (3) spends at least 

one-third of time on research activities; (4) began '' . 

publishing early in career and received positive 

feedback from peers for research efforts . . .; and 

(5) maintains regular close contact . . . with 

colleagues on and off campus who conduct research 

on a similar topic. (Creswell, 1985, p. vi) 

Finkelstein (1984) has reported similar characteristics for productive 

published writers: (1) holds a doctorate; (2) is oriented toward 

research; (3) demonstrates early publications and is recognized for 

scholarship; (4) maintains close contacts with colleagues and keeps 

abreast of the literature; and (5) demonstrates a greater time 

commitment to research than teaching (p. 98). 

Research on publication productivity has been conducted in a 

number of academic disciplines including the natural and biological 

sciences, mathematics, liberal arts and humanities, behavioral and 

social sciences, engineering, business, medicine, and law. Other 

research has focused on scientists in general, where faculty as a group 

have been found to be the most productive within the norms of academia. 

In nursing, studies of individual scholarly productivity have included 

those by Holt (1973), Lia-Hoagberg (1985), Marella (1974), Nieswiadomy 

(1984), Ostmoe (1982, 1986), Phillips (1973), and Pranulis (1984). In 

their classic study of research activities by faculty, Fulton and Trow 

(1974) included nursing faculty under the category, "new and 

semi-professional fields," indicating more of a practice focus of such 

disciplines, thus differing from others in academia. Nursing has 


become increasingly concerned with scholarly productivity, but with 
variable definitions and applications of scholarly products (Baird et 

al., 1985). 

Variables studied as correlates of individual scholarly 
productivity have been numerous. Representative studies and findings 
are included in the following section describing common variables 
Academic rank 

Academic rank has frequently been found to be a significant factor 
related to scholarly productivity (Finkelstein; 1984; Hall, 1975; 
Walton, 1982) . Findings in the literature are inconclusive as to 
whether rank serves as an antecedent, a consequence, or an intervening 
variable despite this significant association. Fulton and Trow (1974) 
found an increasing tendency for research activity, the higher the 
academic rank with "the most crucial difference between the temporary 
rank of instructor and the career rank of assistant professor" (p. 50). 
These researchers hypothesized that instructors simply have no time for 
the research they wish to do when rank was considered with respect to 
research orientation (Fulton & Trow, 1974, p. 51). Behymer and 
Blackburn (1975) found that academic rank was the third most 
significant predictor of rate of article production but when a more 
powerful statistical test was used, Blackburn et al. (1978) indicated 
that rank was the most significant predictor of productivity. Other 
studies have focused on the three professorial ranks, with significant 
positive correlations reported with scholarly productivity. Gunne and 


Stout (1980) found that assistant professors studied were found to be 
generally half as productive as the associate professors and professors 
combined or the department chairpersons (p. 143). In his investigation 
of productivity of undergraduate faculty. Hall (1975) stated that rank 
was a significant predictor but "more a title than a cause or 
consequence of publication productivity" (p. 60) . Still, rank has been 
found to be significantly related to both cumulative publication 
productivity as well as rate of productivity which lends support to 
factors other than longevity in the academic setting (Finkelstein, 
1984) . ■ ' " ' '''■ 

In nursing, academic rank has been further supported as a 
predictor of scholarly productivity. With respect to research, 
Nieswiadomy (1984) found a significant relationship between rank and 
four measures of productivity: degree studies, non-degree studies, 
published studies, and present studies. Pranulis (1984) reported the 
highest level of scholarly productivity for full professors in her 
study of nurse doctorates, while Lane et al. (1981) found that the 
greatest participation in research activities was by associate and full 
professors of nursing. Further support for the significance of 
academic rank as a correlate of publication productivity in academic 
nursing has been reported by Ostmoe (1982). 
Administrative activities 

Faculty involvement in administrative activities in studies of 
scholarly productivity have been used in a more descriptive than 
inferential manner. Roe (1965) reported that the majority of the 


eminent scientists she had studied more than a decade earlier had since 
undertaken some form of administrative responsibility, from department 
chairperson, to head of the institutional unit, to other types of 
positions. When re-interviewed these eminent scholars agreed that any 
administrative position takes time away from research, yet Roe (1965) 
determined that they continued to contribute significantly to the 
literature through publication. Fulton and Trow (1974) reported the 
principle, "the more, the more" in relation to productive researchers 
after discovering that the ones they identified also filled a good deal 
more administrative roles along with research and teaching than their 
less productive counterparts (p. 68) . Gunne and Stout (1980) , who 
studied publishing patterns of department chairpersons and faculty at 
three professorial ranks, reported that mean productivity for 
chairpersons was consistently higher for four measures of scholarly 
productivity than assistant professors despite the formers' 
administrative responsibilities. 

Further investigation of this area is needed in academic nursing 
with consideration of possible differences specific to the discipline. 
Pranulis (1984) reported the following faculty perceptions on the 
influence of administrative responsibilities on research activities: 
46.6 percent felt they were an inhibitor, 13.6 percent felt they were a 
facilitator, and 38.8 percent of faculty in the sample felt there was 
no effect (p. 118) . When nurses with doctorates were compared with 
other academic women in research universities, Lia-Hoagberg (1985) 
reported that nurses with doctorates demonstrated greater 


administrative functions in their positions while other academic women 
exhibited greater levels of scholarly productivity. Some of the 
differences between these findings may relate to either 
non-representative samples or the environments of the nurse doctorates 
and the other academic women studied. Fulton and Trow (1974) observed 
that the separation between research and other roles, like teaching and 
administration, was more apparent in institutions other than elite 
institutions where roles were combined. 
Age ' •' .,- -■^' -^^'r . • 

Investigators have sought to relate scholarly productivity to 
chronological age, but the significance of the scholar's age alone has 
been negligible. Blackburn et al. (1978) eliminated age as a predictor 
of scholarly productivity when stronger statistical tests demonstrated 
that age was highly correlated with academic rank, a stronger predictor 
of productivity (p. 135). Fulton and Ttow (1974) have supported this 
association between age and rank while other researchers report age as 
a nonsignificant variable (Pranulis, 1984; Walton, 1982). Although 
publication rates were found to decrease with age. Over (1982) reported 
that previous productivity was a better predictor of future 
productivity than age. 

Descriptions of productive periods of scholars have been more 
useful. Pelz and Andrews (1976) described scientists in universities, 
governmental agencies, and laboratories exhibiting a bimodal 
distribution of productivity, with peaks at 35 to 44 and 50 to 54 years 
of age. This bimodal distribution was supported for medical school 


faculty with productive peaks at 42 to 44 and 57 to 59 years (Pearse et 
al., 1976). Further support for a bimodal age distribution for 
publication productivity with college and university faculty may be 
found in the literature (Blackburn et al., 1978; Knorr, Mettermeir, 
Aichholzer, and Waller, 1979). 

One influence which should be considered at this point is the 
development of a scientific orientation and socialization to a 
profession through career age. Career age has been defined in a 
variety of ways: length of time in higher education, length of time in 
present career, and length of time since the doctoral or terminal 
degree was earned. These definitions have the same basic intent, to 
show orientation to and alignment with basic professional goals and 
value structures in the professions and in academia. Several 
researchers have entered some form of control for career age in their 
studies, through sampling design (Crane, 1965), preliminary statistical 
manipulation of the data (Creswell and Bean, 1981), or through 
adjustment factors with calculations (Neumann, 1979) for scholarly 
productivity. In other studies, significant associations with career 
age and publication productivity have been reported (Bayer & Dutton, 
1977; Hall, 1975; Wanner et al., 1980; Walton, 1982). Phillips (1973) 
found that career age was associated with both quality and quantity of 
publications of nurses with doctorates. Focusing on longitudinal data 
for career influences, Baldwin and Blackburn (1981) have reported a 
decline in scholarly and research interests during the academic career. 

Disciplines have variable mean age entry points for their 
scholars- If career age is based on age at the doctorate, it should 


logically follow that if the mean entry point for scholars is 
significantly later with all other factors constant, then the bimodal 
distribution should be similarly shifted. This may be the case for 
nursing at present. Research has shown mean ages for completion of 
doctoral education for nurses of 41.5 (Brimmer et al., 1983) and 39.4 
(Ostmoe, 1982) years. As Ostmoe (1982) illustrated, median ages at 
receipt of the doctorate are lower for individuals in disciplines other 
than nursing, with a range of 29.1 to 37.0 years as compared with the 
median of 40 years in nursing (pp. 95, 97). Some of the influence from 
the higher median age at which nurses complete doctoral studies may 
relate to the nature of the population with nursing as a predominantly 
female discipline. Humphreys (1984) reported a greater overall number 
of years before the doctorate for women than for men. Still, the 
question of additional influences should be considered based on 
Lia-Hoagberg's (1985) findings which revealed the later age at which 
nurses attain doctoral degrees when compared with other academic women. 

For the purposes of exploring scholarly productivity with 
established nurse researchers in this study, career age has been 
defined in terms of years of full-time academic appointments rather 
than age at doctorate. Number of years in nursing (Nieswiadomy, 1984) 
was not used due to possible additional interpretations which could 
have been introduced before obtaining the terminal degree, for example, 
time spent in clinical practice, graduate studies, non-academic 
teaching positions, unemployment, etc. 


Another explanation has been proposed related to career age, 
accumulative advantage. Allison and Stewart (1974) have hypothesized, 
"because of feedback through recognition and resources, highly 
productive scientists maintain or increase their productivity, while 
scientists who produce little, produce even less later on" (p. 596). 
Accumulative advantage has been used further to describe the positive 
relationship between career age and increases among productivity, 
resources, and esteem (p. 596). Although Fox (1983) has indicated that 
direct tests of accumulative advantage are lacking, this has 
implications when the significance of early productivity as a predictor 
for scholarly productivity and reputational influences are considered. 

In general, when other variables are accounted for, chronological 
age alone has been held to be nonsignificant. Career age has been 
shown to be a better indicator for scholarly productivity. 
Communication with colleagues • 

in several studies it has been found that high producers 
coiranunicate frequently with scholars at other institutions (Behymer & 
Blackburn, 1975; Finkelstein, 1982; Hall, 1975). Communication with 
other scholars, especially those working in similar areas of research 
interests, include formal and informal methods, as with written 
correspondence, telephone communications, contacts at professional 
meetings, and collaboration on projects. Creswell (1985) has observed 
that interpersonal communication, especially visits and telephone 
contacts, with off-campus colleagues affects research performance (p. 
38). Blackburn et al. (1978) have reported frequency of communication 


with scholars at their institutions is a significant predictor for 
total article production, and rate of productivity is correlated with 
interest in research. Finkelstein (1982) described patterns of 
collegial interactions as more related to scholarly productivity with 
descriptions of localism (at the departmental level) and 
cosmopolitanism (at the discipline level) . The most prolific 
publishers were found to be faculty with a combined local and 
cosmopolitan orientation. -■ . . 

Some differences have been found relative to the sex of the 
academician and use of communication with colleagues. Astin (1984) 
observed that women are more restricted in their communication networks 
than their male cohorts. Yet, differences may occur among women in 
academia, especially nurse faculty. Frieze and Hanusa (1984) reported 
that academic women generally demonstrate less communication with 
colleagues than men but in some fields of science with sufficient, women 
and network systems, networks provide women with both emotional support 
and current information on developments (p. 158). 

Subscriptions to professional journals are another form of 
communication with colleagues; communication of scientific findings and 
scholarly information. Ostmoe (1982) has related this variable to 
"informal continuing education." Other researchers refer to 
professional subscriptions similarly in attempts of scholars to keep 
current in their own or related fields (Bayer & Dutton, 1977) . 
Generally, the number of subscriptions the scholar has to professional 
or scientific journals has been found to have a significant positive 


association with scholarly productivity. Behymer and Blackburn (1975) 
have proposed that intrinsic variables such as interest in research, 
communication with colleagues, and the number of academic journals 
subscribed to are better predictors of productivity than extrinsic 
variables as with institutional pressure to publish for promotion (p. 
12). Bayer and Dutton (1977) found the number of subscriptions to be 
statistically significant for all fields investigated but with a 
decline at mid-career in some fields and an increase at mid-career in 

others. i ■ T.-' .' • 

In studies with nurses, the number of subscriptions to 
professional journals has also received support as a correlate of 
scholarly productivity. Ostmoe (1982) reported a median of three to 
four subscriptions received by her sample (p. 195). Holt (1973) also 
found that nurse faculty attitudes toward research and theory 
development were positively related to the number and type of 
professional journals read regularly. 
Early productivity • i. . ■ *. 

Publication prior to the doctorate, or early productivity, has 
been found to be a significant predictor for scholarly productivity. 
Walton (1982) reported that 54.2 percent of high producers studied had 
published prior to the doctorate in comparison with 32 percent of the 
low producers" (p. 311). Blackburn et al. (1978) have found early 
productivity to be a good predictor of future productivity and although 
productivity seems to decline over time, high producers continue with 
productive output and interest levels. In addition to early 


productivity, current productivity is further related to past article 
productivity (Fulton & Trow, 1974; Hall, 1975) with the higher 
producers continuing at high levels. Other studies supported this 
positive association between early productivity and subsequent 
productivity (Clemente, 1973; Manis, 1950; Phillips, 1973). Ostmoe 
(1982) reported that 52.7 percent of all nurse faculty with doctorates 
in her study had reported publications to their credit prior to earning 
the doctorate. 
Educational background -" ■..'•<•". 

Many studies on productivity have controlled for faculty with 
earned doctorates through either the requirement for the terminal 
degree in the academic setting (Holley, 1977; Jolly, 1983; Neumann, 
1979; Pearse et al., 1976) or through their sampling design (Bayer S 
Dutton, 1977; Blackburn et al., 1978; Cameron & Blackburn, 1981; 
Clemente, 1973; Cole, 1981; Crane, 1965; Hall, 1975; Hargens et al., 
1978; Jauch & Glueck, 1975; Long, 1978; Manis, 1950; Reskin, 1977, 
1978) . Since some studies of nursing faculty have not used such 
controls, educational background from the aspect of highest level of 
completion can be addressed. Holt (1973) and Nieswiadomy (1984) 
included faculty from diploma, associate degree, baccalaureate, and 
higher degree programs in their respective samples. Holt (1973) 
reported that neither the type of basic nursing education program 
attended nor the amount of education had an effect on attitudes toward 
research and theory development except through place of employment (p. 
1608-B) . Yet, Nieswiadomy (1984) found a significant positive 


relationship between nurse educators' level of educational preparation 
and all four measures of research productivity. Ostmoe (1982) reported 
that faculty members with doctorates in her sample were more prolific 
publishers than master's prepared faculty and further identified 
differences with respect to type of doctoral degree. In Pranulis' 
(1984) study of faculty, both educational background and types of 
research by doctoral degree failed to demonstrate significance, but 98 
percent of the respondents identified their educational background as a 
facilitator of research. Marella (1974) reported a difference between 
graduate nursing faculty with doctorates in the sciences and faculty 
with doctoral majors in nursing and education; the former group ranked 
research as more important, rated themselves more competent in certain 
methodologies, conducted more research, and had higher publication 

jr 1 

rates . ' j ; 

Crane (1965) proposed that scientists who receive doctoral degrees 
from major universities are more likely to be productive and receive 
recognition, but this may be due to either contacts with eminent 
scientists or to the creation of a "halo effect" from the prestige of 
the institution. Further, Crane (1965) did admit that this finding 
created an elitist view of scientific activity and the data permitted 
various interpretations (p. 714). Long (1978) called for a 
reconsideration of the reward system of science and indicated that the 
"academic department may recruit on the basis of prestige of the mentor 
and the doctoral department because they have insufficient evidence of 
the young scientist's productivity" (pp. 905-906). Reskin (1978) 


reported that the caliber of the doctoral program is associated with 
productivity but ascription of better candidates into the better 
quality departments must also be considered relative to productivity. 
In consideration of environmental context, Long and McGinnis (1981) 
reported an association between the organization and scholarly 
productivity indicating that within three to six years of obtaining a 
position, the scientist's level of productivity conforms to the context 
independent of previous productivity, thus, new levels of productivity 
are determined by the context of the work rather than past productivity 
levels or environments (pp. 440-441) . "Recent research findings 
suggest that the reputation of academicians are influenced by their 
affiliations; [yet,] it should be clear that individual reputations 
significantly influence the larger reputations of academic departments 
and universities" (Cole, 1981, p. 95) . 
Facilitators f 

One facilitator of scholarly productivity is the habit of writing. 
Hall and Blackburn (1975) reported that the habit of professional 
writing was the single best predictor for publication productivity of 
faculty at four-year colleges when rank and other variables were held 
constant. In an investigation of writing habits and attitudes of 
faculty at doctoral granting universities, Boice and Johnson (1984) 
reported that productivity has a significant negative association with 
writing anxiety but a positive association with writing more than once 
a week. Writing habits will be discussed in a subsequent section. 


Environmental facilitators for scholarly productivity have been 
investigated in academic nursing contexts. Pranulis (1984) reported 
the most important influence on nurse faculty research productivity was 
the presence of extramural funding. The facilitators to research 
reported by at least 75 percent of the respondents in her study were 
educational background, personal values, research role 

responsibilities, other nurses' interest in the problem, administrative 
support for research, criteria for retention and promotion, and 
organizational mission, goals and objectives (Pranulis, 1984). 
Furthermore, environmental characteristics proposed which facilitate 
productivity included: "(1) organizational emphasis on research that 
is equal to or greater than its emphasis on teaching or service . . .; 
(2) administrative support and role modeling for research; (3) half or 
more of the faculty engaged in research activities; (4) institutional 
mechanisms to support and facilitate seeking extramural funding; and 
(5) interorganizational and interdepartmental procedures to facilitate 
faculty access to information or subjects for research purposes" 
(Pranulis, 1984, p. 207). ' ' 

Batey (1978) studied university schools of nursing that had been 
awarded major federal funding for research. Following this study, 
Batey (1981) proposed the following criteria for successful and 
productive environments: 

1. There is an informed and collegial approach to 
inquiry and to the social system of science . . .; 

2. Inquiry, not just the conduct of studies, is 


integrated into and synthesized with all dimen- ■ ~ ' 
sions of the faculty role; 

3. Research is carried out as a natural activity as 
contrasted to a self conscious behavior; 

4. There are vigorous programs of research that - ..- . 
complement each of the major conceptual threads 

of the academic programs of the school, and those 
research programs at any one time involve a sig- 
nificant portion of the faculty; and ;.' 

5. There is command of sufficient resources to 
sustain the program. (pp. 56-57) 

Family influences 

Few studies have yielded support to significant relationships 
between productivity and family influences, for example, number of 
dependents and marital status. Hamovitch and Morgenstern (1977) 
reported that the number of children (dependents) is nonsignificant 
related to publication productivity. Conversely, Hargens et al. (1978) 
used two-year publication and citation counts with research chemists in 
university and governmental settings to show that "having any children 
costs scientists of both sexes about one and one-half published papers 
over a two year period" (p. 159). , .' 

Marital status has also failed to be shown as a significant 

correlate of scholarly productivity (Hall, 1975; Ostmoe, 1982; 

Phillips, 1973). Hamovitch and Morgenstern (1977) found a negative 

correlation between single status and article productivity but this 

failed to be significant when other variables were controlled. Cole 

(1981) has reported results from longitudinal studies which indicate: 

women scientists who are married turn out to be 
significantly more prolific than those who are 
not; and women who are married with one or two 



children are slightly more scientifically pro- 
ductive than unmarried women, and only slightly 
less so than those who are married and without 
any children. However . . . once a woman has 
had three or more children there is a decline in 
research output, but not to a point significantly 
lower than that found among the unmarried women. 
Such results fly in the face of conventional wisdom, 
and we should therefore approach them with caution, (p. 388) 

Conversely, Astin (1984) found that academic women publish less than 

men and receive fewer citations, irrespective of marital status. 

Further, when demographic factors were compared using 1969 and 1980 

data bases, the proportion of academic women had increased and they 

were more likely to be married and have children, though less than the 

male cohorts (Astin, 1984). *'■ * 

Parental and early childhood influences have been investigated 
more in early literature in efforts to identify biographical profiles 
and predictors of performance and creativity for the encouragement, 
development, and recruitment of youth into scientific careers (Taylor 
and Ellison, 1967). Recently, Humphreys (1984) reported that parents 
of women scientists and engineers had more education, especially the 
father, than the parents of male scientists. But, like marital status 
and the number of dependents, most studies have used parental education 
levels merely to describe the sample, if these are reported at all. 

Several investigators have reported that males are significantly 
more productive than females in terms of publications (Clemente, 1973; 
Cole, 1981; Cole & Zuckerman, 1984; Hamovitch & Morgenstern, 1977; 
Walton, 1982) , while other investigators report differences as 


nonsignificant (Reskin, 1978). Other studies have shown that women are 
underrepresented in research universities. Cameron and Blackburn 
(1981) found that when other variables were statistically controlled, 
there was no difference in publication productivity by gender. Cole 
and Zuckerman (1984) have reported that the number of productive women 
faculty has increased but disparities between gender and productivity 
have remained stable. In terms of writing habits, Boice and Johnson 
(1984) observed that gender was not significantly associated with 
output but differences were apparent with the use of seclusion when 
writing and the perception of the lack of time reported by women 


Although differences in productivity for men and women are 
frequently cited in the literature, generally studies have found gender 
to have poor or no predictive effect on productivity when other 
variables are controlled (Behymer & Blackburn, 1975; Blackburn et al., 
1978; Clemente, 1973). As Cole and Zuckerman (1984) have observed, the 
variability in productivity is greater within each gender than between 
genders (p. 248) . 

Habits which have been found associated with scholarly 
productivity include hours per week spent on research activities and 
writing habits. When productive researchers are compared with their 
less productive cohorts, hours spent on research have been found to be 
a significant factor. Walton (1982) reported that the majority of high 
producers in his study devoted five or more hours per week to research 


while a significant majority of low producers spent four hours or less 
per week on similar activities (p. 310). Blackburn et al. (1978) have 
suggested that since recent rate of publication is a significant 
predictor of publication productivity, "the formation of a habit of 
writing matters most of all" (p. 139) . Hall (1975) recommended that 
"efforts should be made to develop and sustain a 'habit of 
scholarship, ' wherein both [the faculty member and institution] agree 
to a portion of the workload devoted to research, reading, and writing" 

(p. 132). . -: ""■'' ^ \ 

. - ' ' ^ ^ . 

Pranulis (1984) found that faculty who devote time specifically to 
research activities by setting aside time and adjusting role 
responsibilities have significantly higher total and publication 
productivity scores (p. 169) . In addition, she characterized 
productive researchers as devoting 16 or more hours to research a week 
(Pranulis, 1984, p. 182). Gortner (1985) and Ostmoe (1982) similarly 
report a significant effect on nurse faculty productivity through 
devotion of percentages of time to research. 
Institutional type and mission 

Research has revealed differences in productivity of faculty by 
type of institution: colleges, universities, and types of universities 
(Baird et al., 1985; Behymer & Blackburn, 1975; Blackburn et al., 1978; 
Cameron & Blackburn, 1981; Finkelstein, 1984; Fulton & Trow, 1974; 
Hall, 1975; Ladd, 1979; Pellino et al., 1984; Walton, 1982). Some of 
these differences have been attributed to whether there was a primary 
institutional mission for research. Clark (1973) reported that faculty 


at church-related colleges perceive less emphasis on research and 
publication while faculty at both church-related and small public 
colleges define a greater focus on teaching. Faculty values toward 
scholarly productivity have also been related to university policy. 
Blackburn et al. (1978) have observed, "although faculty who publish 
also most often agree that publishing is important in achieving tenure, 
these faculty also more often work at institutions where the role 
expectations and reward systems are consistent with their own career 

goals" (p. 134). 

Andreoli and Musser (1984) have proposed an organizational 
subsystem in a model for nursing faculty productivity and observe that 
the university's purposes and goals have a measurable effect on 
productivity with an agreement needed between the values of the 
university, the school of nursing, and expected faculty roles (p, 11) . 
Although not tested in her study, Pranulis (1984) proposed "the greater 
the fit between the individual and the environment, the greater the 
probability that both the individual's and the organization's goals 
will be met" (p. 191). At the school level, investigations for 
similarities in goals and values have been done related to scholarly 
productivity of faculty. University schools of nursing have been 
moving in closer alignment with policies of the parent institutions in 
past years, but much depends on the environment. Over a decade ago, 
Marella (1974) found disparity between faculty and organizational 
values when graduate nursing faculty were asked to rank their 
preferences for seven activities as compared with their perceptions of 


institutional policy emphasis. At that point in time, respondents 
placed teaching as the primary preference at both the individual and 
institutional levels while weighting of scholarly productivity was more 
variable. This was somewhat supported five years later when Fawcett 
(1979) reported prevailing values of teaching and service in schools of 
nursing as opposed to research in other disciplines. Recently, 
Pranulis (1984) reported that in the majority of the university schools 
of nursing she investigated, there was the same or greater emphasis at 
the school level as at the parent university level with the emphasis 
being given to teaching graduate students, conducting research, and 
communicating research. Undergraduate teaching was found to be ranked 
in fourth place at these same schools at both the school and university 
level (Pranulis, 1984). The conflicting results between the studies by 
Marella and Pranulis may be due to methodologies, with Marella sampling 
a more diverse and larger population while Pranulis obtained her 
organizational data from one resource person at each of the ten 
university schools of nursing. On the other hand, consideration must 
be given to institutional context along with the fact that nursing is 
moving more in line with academia with upgraded standards (M. I. 
Murphy, 1985; O'Shea, 1986), especially at the university levels. 

May, Meleis and Winstead-Fry (1982) have proposed that mentorship 
is "essential for the scholarly development of nurses and for the 
integration of the scholarly role in the self" (p. 22) . Mentoring has 
been described as "the cultivation of young talent and the promotion of 

^ 51 

career development through the lending of organizational, role, or 
interpersonal support and teaching" (Hagerty, 1986, p. 17). 

Studies on faculty productivity have given greater attention to 
sponsorship. Sponsorship further enhances the young scientist's 
visibility in the scientific community (May et al., 1982, p. 24). 
Manis (1950) reported that scientists who have had prestigious sponsors 
are more likely to be productive themselves. This has been supported 
by Cameron and Blackburn (1981) who reported, "both financial support 
and early collaboration with senior faculty signal a social selection 
process that impacts significantly on outcome measures ..." of 
publication rate, grants received, collaborations, and professional 
network (p. 372) . Yet, distinctions should be drawn between the 
sponsor's reputation and measures of productivity and visibility of the 
individual sponsored. Reskin (1978) reported that the sponsor's 
productivity affected only early recognition, not enduring 
productivity. j -, . •. • . ;■ 

Further investigation of mentorship is needed with regard to 
scholarly productivity, especially following doctoral education. Long 
and McGinnis (1981) report that the mentor's overall effects on the 
mentee's first job are quite small (p. 430). Yet, eminent scientists 
have been shown to be influenced early in their careers by other 
eminent scientists (Zuckerman, 1967). Greater information on the 
influences of mentorship on both the young and the senior scholars is 
needed, especially in nursing. 



Job mobility has been defined as the number of career moves. As 
such, mobility has been found to have poor predictive effects for 
productivity when other factors are constant (Behymer & Blackburn, 
1975; Blackburn et al., 1978). Long (1978) reported that mobility 
occurs later in the career and still the effects of prestige of the new 
department are weakly associated with the faculty member's 
productivity. One area that has received less attention in terms of 
mobility is the environmental character of the position change. 
Blackburn and Havighurst (1979) , who investigated career stage data 
with older and retired male faculty members, found that very active and 
active scholarly productive faculty moved to research universities in 
job changes while moderately active and inactive faculty moved to 
colleges or non research universities (p. 561). 

Pranulis (1984) controlled for current mobility in her sampling 
design and Ostmoe (1982) did not address mobility. Part of this 
diminished focus may be due to the fact that nurses are predominantly 
women. Cole (1979) has indicated that, "on the whole, women scientists 
are not as mobile as men, more often feeling tied to a particular 
geographic location because of the work requirements of their husbands" 
(p. 12). This limitation on mobility has been supported by Finkelstein 
(1984) who reported two main constraints on the career mobility of 
academic women, enforced mobility or immobility due to the spouse's 
employment. Yet, Sorensen, Van Ort, and Weinstein (1985) observed that 
doctoral preparation appears to add stability, reporting that only 20 


percent of the 32 percent of tenure track nursing faculty who left 
positions in 30 research universities during 1979-1982 had doctoral 
degrees (p. 138) • But when considering the effects of mobility on 
research. Brimmer et al. (1983) found that the mean percent of time 
spent in research activities for all nurses with doctorates studied 
stayed the same whether or not they had changed positions or held the 
same position following awarding of the doctorate (p. 162). Therefore, 
job mobility has had" limited significance in studies of scholarly 

productivity, especially with nurses, j, ; 
Professional societies )>*" ^ -.^ -u 

Membership in professional societies implies access to a 
professional information, value, and network system. In a study of 
scientists and social scientists in Naval laboratories, Friedlander 
(1971) found a significant positive correlation between membership in 
professional societies and scholarly productivity. Cameron and 
Blackburn (1981) have reported a gender difference, with male faculty 
members demonstrating a greater use of networks such as professional 
societies. Some differences are to be expected in nursing with its 
history as a predominantly female profession and less emphasis on 
scholarship than some of the other professions. Still, membership in 
professional societies and the use of networks may be more accessible 
in nursing than in some of the male dominated professions. Ostmoe 
(1982) reported the number of academic and professional memberships was 
positively correlated with publication quantity and quality and further 
demonstrated that fellows of the American Academy of Nursing and 


members of the American Association of Critical Care Nurses are more 
prolific publishers than their non-member counterparts (p. 173). 
Although not specifically addressing professional nursing societies in 
her study, Pranulis (1984) was able to report a significant 
relationship between productivity and recognition from both nursing and 
non nursing groups. 
Publication preferences 

Differences among disciplines in terms of publication preferences 
have been cited by Astin (1984), Finkelstein (1984), Ladd, (1979), and 
others, using a large national data base and a model to categorize 
academic disciplines along the six dimensions of hard-soft, 
pure-applied, and life-non life, Creswell and Bean (1981) discovered 
differences in publication and funding sources by disciplinary groups. 
Faculty in the "hard" areas published more journal articles while 
faculty in the "soft" areas published more books and monographs and 
faculty with a "pure" orientation attracted more federal research 
funding while faculty in "applied" areas attracted more funding from 
private industry (Creswell & Bean, 1981, pp. 83-84). Blackburn et al. 
(1978) used three dependent measures of publication productivity and 
found that although rate of article production over a two year period 
and total career article publication were highly correlated, the total 
career book publication was related to academic discipline rather than 
a measure across disciplines. Neumann (1979) has observed that 

articles, a relatively short form of communication, 
are more important in the physical sciences with a 
high level of consensus about the specification of 


the research problem, the methodology employed and 

the interpretation of the findings. Books, on the . •>■■; 

other hand, are a dominant forms of communication 

in less developed fields and less important in more 

developed fields. Therefore, the relative salience _,/ , '"i'- 

of books is greater in the social sciences than in 

the physical sciences. (p. 94) 

Influences of disciplinary preferences can be seen through use of 

measures for productivity, with some of the natural and biological 

sciences focusing on article and citation counts rather than longer 

forms of communication. The influence of and preferences in the 

nursing literature is an area for consideration, although definitive 

conclusions cannot be made at this point. Nursing Research , the first 

journal devoted to scholarship in nursing, was initially published in 

1952. Other professional journals devoted to scholarship have become 

available predominantly in the past decade and a half. Fagin (1982) 

has reported that nursing is currently involved in establishing its 

identity as an academic profession with research productivity 

intimately linked to success in this endeavor (pp. 67-68) . Journal 

articles are a major form of the needed communication, but at this 

point, relative dominance over longer forms of communication cannot be 

specified. Baird et al. (1985) have reported relative means of 

importance for the different publication forms. While the differences 

appear negligible for the total sample of schools reporting importances 

of these publication forms, greater variability is apparent between the 

type of institution and the form of publication. Publication 

preferences are becoming more apparent in nursing, and will continue to 

do so in the near future. 


Requirements for retention, promotion, and tenure 

University policies and procedures affect faculty productivity 
directly (Andreoli & Musser, 1984, p. 11). In a study to define 
scholarly activity for the development of a faculty evaluation model, 
Baird et al. (1985) found that scholarly activity was considered highly 
important for promotion and tenure considerations in over 50 percent of 
the baccalaureate and baccalaureate and higher degree schools of 
nursing studied. This same study on defining scholarly activities 
further demonstrated variable interpretations of the importance of 
individual activities. Murphy (1985), in a study of tenure in 
baccalaureate and higher degree programs, reported an increased trend 
for tenure requirements for nurses to be the same as for other faculty 
in academia. In studies of scholarly productivity, institutional 
requirements for promotion and tenure have been found to be 
significantly associated with productivity, but as one of the weaker 
predictors (Behymer & Blackburn, 1975; Hall, 1975). Ostmoe (1982) 
reported that beliefs of what should be the relationship between 
publication and promotion and tenure was a significant predictor of 
productivity, with over 90 percent of nursing faculty indicating that 
publication was either very or moderately important in achieving 
tenure. Further, Pranulis observed that 75 percent of her respondents 
reported a positive influence on their research from the organizational 
emphasis (Pranulis & Gortner, 1985, p. 129). 


Research preferences 

At the individual level, an orientation to or preference for 
research has been shown to be related to productivity. Researchers 
have found an interest in research strongly predictive of productivity 
(Behymer & Blackburn, 1975; Hall & Blackburn, 1975). Walton (1982) 
reported research preferences to be significant and demonstrated that 
high producers preferred research over teaching while the opposite was 
true for low producers. Blackburn et al. (1978) reported that high 
producers express more of an interest in research and, although 
interest and productivity have been shown to decline with age, the 
decrease is only relative with the high producers still more productive 
and demonstrating interest in research over the low or moderate 
producers (pp. 134-135) . - 

•, Similar findings have been reported in studies on scholarly 
productivity with nursing faculty. Ostmoe (1982) reported that 
research and publication interests were significant as were five 
measures of motivators to publication: for enjoyment, to advance 
knowledge, faculty obligation, professional obligation, and personal 
prestige. Of the personal variables related to research productivity 
investigated by Pranulis (1984), only the respondent's identity as a 
nurse researcher was found to be significantly related to productivity. 

'•' ■ Institution and department size have been found to be without much 
predictive value; however, communication is facilitated with minimums 
of 11 to 15 faculty members and a maximum of 41 faculty members in the 


department (Behymer and Blackburn, 1975; Blackburn et al., 1978). When 
investigating research productivity in academic and industrial settings 
in Austria, Knorr, Mettermeir, Aichholzer, and Waller (1979) reported a 
significant negative correlation with the size of the research group, 
in the organizational literature, Kimberly (1976) has proposed that 
size has been used too globally to permit its relation to 
organizational structure to be understood, whereas size conceptualized 
as a dimension of context is a more valuable measure. Neither Ostmoe 
(1982) nor Pranulis (1984) reported overall or clinical student to 
faculty ratios for their respective study participants. Both 
researchers observed a low number of weekly clinical hours reported by 
the faculty and speculated as to the cause. No indication was made as 
to faculty or program sizes. Still, faculty load was not significant 
while teaching responsibilities were negatively associated with 
scholarly productivity. . - . 

Specialty areas : '' ' , ^ ■ .. 

Specialty areas of faculty have been addressed more frequently 
among disciplines rather than within disciplines. Relative to within 
discipline specialities, nonsignificant differences have been reported 
on areas in chemistry (Reskin, 1977), counselor education (Walton, 
1982), and nursing (Nieswiadomy, 1984). Jolly (1983), who studied 
physicians to determine research involvement, found that basic 
scientists demonstrated most effort in research. Lane et al. (1981) 
reported low levels of research participation among both master's 
prepared (25 percent) and doctorally prepared (59 percent) faculty but 


respondents whose specialty was community health nursing participated 

most frequently (p. 113). Although the differences were not 

significant, Nieswiadomy (1984) observed a trend for faculty prepared 

in psychiatric-mental health nursing being involved in a greater number 

of research studies than faculty prepared in other specialties. Ostmoe 

(1982) reported significant relationships between both dependent 

measures of quantity and quality of publications and the independent 

variables of doctoral program discipline, doctoral program major, 

clinical focus of first master's degree, and functional focus of first 

master's degree. .*• . i ,,.<- . -'- , 

' - -*'-■■'■ ,.■ ,«■"■' ■ - -■ 

Teaching responsibilities " ^ • 

Teaching and research are integral roles in academia. Fulton and 
Trow (1974) found that faculty who are most active in research also 
teach nearly as much as those faculty who are less productive (p. 68) . 
Hall (1975) reported teaching load and class size as nonsignificant 
variables in his study of publication productivity of faculty at 
four-year colleges. Other studies have demonstrated significant 
differences by types of teaching responsibility. Blackburn et al. 
(1978) reported that faculty teaching graduate students are . 
"approximately six times as likely to have produced five or more 
articles over a two year period than are those teaching undergraduates" 
(p. 136) . Hamovitch and Morgenstern (1977) observed that the number of 
weekly hours teaching and teaching only undergraduates are negatively 
correlated with the number of articles published. When the highest 
level of nursing education offered by the employer was considered. 


Nieswiadomy (1984) reported that the majority of current research was 
being conducted by nursing faculty in schools with graduate nursing 

programs . 

Partially related to level of students or programs offered is the 
influence of clinical teaching for many nurse academicians. Ostmoe 
(1982, 1986) found significantly negative correlations between hours of 
clinical instruction and publication productivity, highest degree 
earned, time spent in research, and level of students taught (p. 202). 
Teaching responsibilities have been perceived as hindrances by graduate 
nursing faculty (Marella, 1974), with 71.8 percent in another study 
reporting teaching responsibilities as an inhibitor to research 
activities (Pranulis, 1984, p. 118). 
Tenure .. ■ •-«* 

Research on the relationship between tenure status and faculty 
productivity has resulted in conflicting findings. It has been 
observed that once the requirement for productivity for tenure approval 
has been removed, output declines (Holley, 1977). Neumann (1979) 
reported that tenured faculty had a significantly higher rate of 
productivity than non tenured faculty in the majority of graduate 
departments studied. Other studies have found that tenure status has 
negligible or no predictive power for productivity when other factors 
are held constant (Behymer & Blackburn, 1975? Blackburn et al., 1978; 
Nieswiadomy, 1984; Walton, 1982). Blackburn et al. (1978) observed 
that tenure is not the cause of any decrease in faculty productivity 
(p. 139). In fact, Holley (1977) proposed that in high level research 


institutions, the type of output after tenure changes from the 
pre-tenure patterns of articles published to favor long range projects 

(p. 187). 

It may still be of value to investigate tenure status with nursing 
faculty. "Unlike traditional academic university programs where nearly 
two-thirds of faculty have tenure, fewer than one-third of nursing 
faculty at academic medical centers are tenured; several nursing 
schools in these settings do not even offer tenure" (Andreoli & Musser, 
1984, p. 9). Pranulis (1984) reported tenure status as a demographic 
variable with 77.5 percent of her respondents having tenure (p. 65). 
Ostmoe (1982) considered age at acceptance of first tenure track 
appointment and, although this was not significant in the analysis, 
reported a mean faculty age of 34.5 years (p. 98). 
Measures of Scholarly Productivity 

Three measures of scholarly productivity have commonly been used 
in the literature. Creswell (1985) has identified these methods as (1) 
publication counts used to measure quantity, including straight counts 
or weighted counts; (2) citation counts which measure quality and 
influence; and (3) ratings by peers or colleagues to measure reputation 
(pp. 7-8). Smith and Fieldler (1971) recommend the use of multiple 
criteria for estimating the scholar's importance including eminence, 
productivity, recognition, and journal quality (pp. 226-232). 

Use of publications to quantify scholarly output requires the 
specification of items to be counted and the time frame in which to do 
so. Jauch and Glueck (1975) have reported that these simple counts are 


effective but researchers and university administrators fail to credit 
this effectiveness, necessitating the inclusion of a journal quality 
index (p. 74). Straight counts through self report have been used for 
cumulative journal articles (Hall, 1975; Hall & Blackburn, 1975), all 
publications (Roe, 1965), cumulative and two-year counts for books and 
articles (Blackburn et al., 1978), and five-year counts for specified 
items (Gunne & Stout, 1980). Over (1982) utilized a straight count for 
articles listed in abstract reference volumes. Clemente (1973) used a 
weighted scheme developed for the discipline (Glenn and Villemez, 1970) 
that allocated 30 points to research or theory books, 15 points to 
textbooks, 10 points to edited books, and a range of four to 10 points 
to articles specific to individual journals. Holley (1977) weighted 
articles by a mean quality index and then adjusted for the number of 
years in which productivity could have occurred. Neumann (1979) used a 
straight count for books and articles and then divided by the number of 
years since receipt of the highest degree to adjust for age of the 
scientist. Crane (1965) designated publications as major and minor 
with a book or four articles on the same or a related topic assigned 
"major" status and four points. Honors received were also considered 
by Crane in her measures of productivity. Cameron and Blackburn (1981) 
used a weighted measure similar to Crane's and added self reports on 
grants received in the past three years, rates of collaboration since 
doctorate, and scores from questions on professional associations and 
publication network involvement. Fulton and Trow (1974) used a 
categorization scheme for a two-year period of professional writings: 


(1) inactive, not currently publishing or active; (2) no recent 
publications (3) few current publications, between one and four; and 
(4) many current publications, five or greater. Creswell and Bean 
(1981) used cumulative and two-year publication counts for book and 
articles plus reports on research funding in the past year and 
cumulative research grants from five different sources. 

Other researchers have used a combination of approaches including 
citations and ratings. Manis (1950) used a weighted count with single 
authored books assigned 18 points, co-authored books equal to 18 points 
divided by the number of authors, and articles, bulletins, and edited 
books equal to one point each. A categorization for age was then used 
as a correction measure. Manis' (1950) second measure for productivity 
was adjudged quality of the contributions based on peer ratings. 
Walton (1982) used self reports on cumulative and two-year article 
counts, total books and monographs, involvement in sponsored research, 
and citation counts. Bayer and Dutton (1977) used cumulative book 
counts and cumulative and two-year article counts, plus reports on 
works cited, engagement in pure or basic research, average hours per 
week spent in research, number of journal subscriptions, and off-campus 
paid consulting. Article counts using printed abstracts or curriculum 
vitae plus counts of citations by others have also be used (Cole, 1979; 
Cole & Zuckerman, 1984; Hargens, McCann, & Reskin, 1978; Long, 1978; 
Long and McGinnis, 1981; Reskin, 1977, 1978) with data with variable 
time frames. 


An additional comment must be made at this point concerning the 
use of data bases. Several studies reviewed have been based on data 
from specific data bases including the 1969 American Council on 
Education - Carnegie Commission data (Behymer & Blackburn, 1975; . 
Blackburn et al., 1978; Fulton & Trow, 1974; Hall, 1975; Hall & 
Blackburn, 1975; Hamovitch & Morgenstern, 1977), the 1972-1973 American 
Council on Education data (Bayer & Dutton, 1977), the 1977 Ladd and 
Lipsett study (Creswell & Bean, 1982, Ladd, 1979; Wanner et al., 1980), 
and the 1980 Higher Education Research Institute (Austin, 1984). 
Although some of these studies have used secondary data analyses, 
subsamples of the data, or complementary studies, the research findings 
were based on a similar pool of data. 

In nursing, a variety of dependent measures have also been used. 
Ostmoe (1982, 1986) considered both unweighted and weighted counts 
based single authorship, co-authorship, and multiple authorship for 
books, edited books, monographs, book chapters, and articles. Books 
were weighted as four points, all other items were weighted as one 
point, and then divided by the numbers of authors credited for the 
work. To consider further quality of publications, Ostmoe used 10 
specified nursing journals and calculated publication productivity in 
the same weighted and unweighted manner, based on authorship. Due to 
high positive correlations found between weighted and unweighted 
quantity of publication scores, (Ostmoe 1986) has recommended the 
elimination of weighted counts based on authorship and a greater focus 
on quality of the publications (p. 211) . Pranulis (1984) adapted the 


work of Ostmoe and used a weighted count for publications, paper 
presentations, and other tangible products based on self reports from 
nurse doctorates. No distinction was made for single or multiple 
authorship with books assigned four points, papers in refereed journals 
or presented at national or international meetings assigned two points, 
papers in non refereed journals or presented at regional or interstate 
meetings, symposium proceedings, book chapters and other tangible 
products assigned one point, and papers presented at local meetings 
assigned one-half point each. Nieswiadomy (1984) used nurse educators' 
self reports of number of degree studies, number of non-degree studies, 
number of published studies, and number of present studies. 
Lia-Hoagberg (1985) used straight counts for types and numbers of 
publications along with time spent on specific scholarly activities by 
nurse doctorates. Phillips (1973) used a qualitative and quantitative 
index during a review of selected volumes of journals published. Baird 
et al. (1985) reported means of importance from respondent schools 
based on a five-point scale for 35 scholarly activities listed on a 


Some bibliographic and publication credit indicators are less 
developed in nursing as compared with other disciplines. Use of 
citation counts as a measure of peer recognition or influence of a 
scholar's work has been used in chemistry, psychology, and other 
disciplines in which data bases and author indexing are more 
established to gauge webs of influence. In nursing, such sources are 
less conducive to effective measurement. For example, the Science 


Citation Index has nursing journals listed with variable journal titles 
and volumes in each index. In addition, two of the top five journals 
rated highest in scholarship by deans (Fagin, 1982), Advances in 
Nursing Science and Western Journal of Nursing Research are not 
included in the current index. Similarly, credit based on 
contributions of multiple authorship is less established in nursing 
than in some other disciplines. In an assessment of the views of 
nurses in assigning publication credit, War ley. Murphy, Gosch, 
Gottesmann, and Newcomb (1981) concluded that nursing had not yet 
developed an ethical principle of assigning authorship to contributions 
(p. 262). Several years later. Waltz, Nelson, and Chambers (1985) 
reported that nurses are in clearer agreement on assignment of 
authorship credit than their colleagues in other health fields but that 
further discussion is needed in the area of collaboration on research. 

Overall, studies on scholarly productivity have used quantifiable 
measures to evaluate levels of accomplishments of scholars. Still, 
there is an indication of an elusive variability among scientists and 
scholars perhaps related to broader issues with the reward system and 
values of science. ■ • 


The issue of eminence of both institutions and scholars is germane 
to the discussion since this study has been based on the assumption 
that increased research and scholarly activities by established nurse 
researchers occurs at leading academic institutions. "Prestige in the 
scientific community is largely graded in terms of the extent to which 


scientists are held to have contributed to the advancement of knowledge 
in their fields and is far less influenced by other kinds of role 
performances, such as teaching, involvement in the politics of science, 
or in organizing research" (Zuckerman, 1977, p. 9). Eminence, or 
prestige, of institutions and scholars has been studied with variable 
relationships reported. Whether the source for further status or 
reputation through productivity is the institution, the university 
department (discipline), the scholar's doctoral program, or the 
scholar's productivity record, eminence has generally been shown to be 
a factor related to scholarly productivity. 
Institutional Eminence 

Studies in higher education have considered the influence of 
institutional reputation on scholarly productivity using a variety of 
measures and terminology. In a study of sociologists in academic 
settings, Manis (1950) reported the dependent measures of volume of 
publication and adjudged quality of publications were positively 
correlated with the eminence of the institution. Neumann (1979) used 
departmental quality levels (distinguished, strong, good, and adequate 
plus) as a sampling frame to study research productivity of tenured and 
nontenured graduate faculty in four academic disciplines. Cameron and 
Blackburn (1981) found a significant effect for sponsorship 
(departmental reputation) but were uncertain whether this variable was 
related to ascription or achievement of faculty in the three 
disciplines studied (p. 374) . Long (1978) investigated the 
relationship between productivity and position in the careers of 


biochemists in graduate programs for evidence of departmental effect 
versus selection effect. Longitudinal findings indicated that quantity 
of publications and citations are facilitated by departmental location 
(prestige) rather than selection (Long, 1978, p. 902) . Fulton and Trow 
(1974), using three levels of quality to classify institutions based on 
characteristics and qualifications of faculty and students and on 
institutional resources, described the distribution of research 
activities and the trend for continuing research activity in leading 
and middle quality universities (p. 71) . Crane (1965) reported a 
positive relationship for productivity and scientific recognition when 
compared with prestige of the institution. Blackburn, Behymer, and 
Hall (1978) investigated faculty publication productivity and found 
that faculty affiliated with high prestige colleges and universities 
exhibit greater productivity than faculty at lower prestige 
institutions. In an earlier study by Behymer and Blackburn (1975), a 
significant relationship was found between institutional prestige and 
publication productivity for faculty at four-year and graduate 
institutions. Still, in a study that same year confined to faculty at 
four-year colleges. Hall (1975) reported that institutional prestige 
was not a significant predictor of publication productivity. Wanner et 
al. (1980) used an interdisciplinary basis and have reported a 
significant relationship between scientific productivity and 
institutional quality yet stress the need to consider the context of 
individual disciplines. Long and McGinnis (1981) have reported, 
"organizational context emerges as a strong factor determining not only 


levels of productivity, but also, and more importantly, changes in 
rates of productivity occurring after a position is obtained" (p. 435) . 
Zuckerman (1977) has described a multiplier effect that distinguished 
scientists have through attraction of other established scientists and 
needed resources which further enhances the standing of the 
organization (p. 250) . 

In a study prepared for the National League for Nursing, Wandelt, 
Duffy, and Pollock (1985) used a qualitative approach to describe 
components, interactions, and interrelationships in top-ranked schools 
of nursing. Purposeful samples of administrators, faculty, and 
students were interviewed in groups of six at six top-ranked schools of 
nursing randomly selected from a list of the 20 top-ranked schools 
identified in an earlier study by Chamings (1984) . The investigators 
considered a variety of elements influencing reputational status of 
these schools. Although research and scholarly productivity of faculty 
were not directly addressed in the interview guide, Wandelt et al. 
(1985) concluded that perceptions about research were interwoven in 
descriptions by all groups as components of the schools of nursing, 
especially with reference to the dean, faculty, and curricula (p. 131). 
Wandelt et al. (1985) further reported the "value" faculty placed on 
publications was seen as an obligation for sharing findings, with 
research viewed as contributing to growth, learning, and the quality of 
teaching (p. 45) . 


Individual Eminence 

Individual background factors have been considered in several 
classic studies of eminent male scientists. Roe (1952) used three 
forms of psychological tests and life histories to study eminent 
American scientists considered most likely to exemplify special 
qualities associated with success in research. Panels of experts in 
three disciplines identified the eminent researchers studied. 
Subsequent to this four-year study. Roe (1952) presented a profile of 
the "average eminent scientist" whom she characterized as first-born 
son of a middle class professional man, of high intelligence, satisfied 
with his chosen profession but with a driving absorption in work, and 
who developed a research interest following a college project (p. 22) . 
In a follow-up study with 52 of the same 64 scientists. Roe (1965) 
concluded that there had been few changes in the work habits of these 
men over time, in that they continued to contribute at a high level, 
and they had received much recognition from their peers. Roe (1965) 
also reported on one frequent comment from the scientists: the need 
for long stretches of time for research (p. 317) . 

Cattell and Drevdahl (1955) used a 16-factor personality test to 
compare the personality profiles of eminent researchers with the 
general adult population and with a sample of eminent teachers and 
administrators with negligible research contributions. Natural and 
social science researchers studied were selected by committees based on 
eminence in their professional society. Researchers were found to be 
more self-sufficient, emotionally unstable, bohemianly unconcerned. 


radical, dominant, paraniod, and intelligent (Cattell & Drevdahl, 
1955, p. 259) . 

Simon (1974) investigated work habits and professional 
accomplishments of eminent scientists to look, at the relationships 
between work habits, scholarly productivity, and success. These 
eminent scientists were selected, also by panels of experts, as the 20 
most outstanding scholars living in the United States. Findings 
revealed a long-term dedication of time and effort to work. Typical 
working days ranged from four to 16 hours in length, 200 to 360 days 
per year (Simon, 1974, p. 329). Most of the scientists indicated that 
they did their writing at home, with approximately 70 percent 
indicating their best work was done in the morning hours. In addition, 
most of the scientists claimed that they made their most significant 
contributions while holding regular academic appointments involving 
teaching and administrative responsibilities (Simon, 1974, p. 335) . 

One of the most in-depth investigations of eminent scientists has 
been done by Zuckerman (1967, 1977) with nobel laureates and other 
leading men of science. Zuckerman (1977) used a variety of data with 
these groups of distinguished scientists to investigate the development 
of knowledge and the stratification system of science. Elite 
scientists were profiled as sons of upper and middle class professional 
men who attended a limited group of elite universities for both 
graduate and undergraduate studies. Zuckerman (1977) hypothesized that 
this background provided educational and social advantages early in the 
career of these scientists. She further observed that "future members 


of the scientific elite have moved toward homogeneity among themselves 
and differentiation from other scientists" (p. 95). Laureates were 
characterized as having a strong sense of their own ability, a strong 
ego, internalized exacting standards of work, and demanding standards 
for judging scientific work (Zuckerman, 1977, pp. 122-126). The 
laureates-to-be were described as having acquired much through their 
professional socialization process with self-selected eminent sponsors 
in which norms and standards, values and attitudes, knowledge skills 
and behaviors, and a sense of significant areas for investigation were 
obtained (Zuckerman, 1977, pp. 123-127). Laureates-to-be were found to 
have a greater number of collaborative endeavors but not a 
significantly greater number of single publications, though they were 
still prolific. Some of the influences cited related to exacting 
standards for publication and emphasis on quality rather than quantity. 
In addition, following receipt of the Nobel prize, the laureates often 
took last authorship, or even deleted their name from the list of 
authors, regardless of contributions to the project. Zuckerman (1977) 
has stated, "as they move through the scientific career, we can observe 
the process by which prestige begets prestige, making them, relative to 
other scientists, increasingly 'rich' in resources, opportunities, and 
esteem" (p. 207) . 
Cumulative advantage ■ '■; 

Related to institutional and individual eminence is the issue of 
cumulative advantage. The stratification hierarchies of institutional 
and individual eminence are interconnected through exchanges of 


prestige and through self-selection and selected recruitment 
(Zuckerman, 1977, p. 250) . The interaction between reputational 
standing and scientific awards (Cole, 1979) provides the basis for 
cumulative advantage. Zuckerman (1977) has proposed two models of 
cvunulative advantage: (1) additive, in which benefits accrue due to 
ascribed advantages irrespective of occupational role performance, and 
(2) multiplicative, in which recipients achieve more based on 
functionally relevant criteria for role performance (p. 60) . 
Cumulative advantage has been described using path analysis (Allison & 
Stewart, 1974) and causal relationships. Austin (1984) has described 
the causal chain of cumulative advantage for an individual: 
"publication, lecture appearances, and participation in informal 
gatherings lead to colleague recognition, which in turn leads to more 
visibility, which leads to more citations and honors, which in turn 
leads to greater colleague recognition and so on" (pp. 262-263) . 

The advantage for the individual scientist is what Merton referred 
to as the "Matthew Effect." Using some of Zuckerman's data, Merton 
(1968) described the "Matthew Effect" to address recognition of 
scientists through the reward and communication systems of science: 
"eminent scientists get disproportionately greater credit for their 
contributions to science while relatively unknown scientists tend to 
get disproportionately little credit for comparable contributions" (p. 
57). Cole (1979) describes reputation affecting the reward structure 
of the scientist in two ways: (1) intrinsically with the accrual of 
awards through status and recognition among peers and (2) extrinsically 


as a conunodity exchangeable for future opportunities for scholarly 
productivity and positional recognition (p. 95) . Zuckerman (1977) has 
proposed that cumulative advantage actually "helps to account for the 
growing disparities between the elite and other scientists in the 
extent and importance of their research contributions over the course 
of their careers" (p. xiii) . 

In nursing, reward structures have not been systematically 
investigated, nor have eminent nurse scientists. Some studies, through 
sample selection, have included individuals or environments which could 
be considered as a more elite group. Batey (1978) focused on 12 
university nursing environments which had received federal funding for 
development of research environments in order to promote the potential 
for receipt of biomedical research grants. Pranulis (1984) indicated 
that her sample of respondents was representative of the population of 
nurses with doctorates, yet the population of nurse doctorates has been 
estimated at 0.15 percent of the work force (Anderson, Roth, & Palmer, 
1985) . This group of nurse doctorates may then be considered as a 
select group with some form of demonstrated scholarly accomplishments, 
even without considering the selection criteria for the environments 
used. Lia-Hoagberg (1985) and Ostmoe (1982) similarly used selection 
criteria for inclusion of nurse doctorates in their respective studies. 
Although not evaluated with a sample of nurses, cumulative advantage 
has been shown to be related to scholarly productivity in the broader 
academic community. As such, established nurse researchers with 
recognized research accomplishments should similarly be identifiable in 
terms of scholarly productivity. 



Recommendations from the Literature 
Three recommendations from recent studies on nurse faculty 
productivity are particularly relevant to this investigation. Ostmoe 
(1986) indicated that "studies which utilize a population of prolific 
publishers may identify the more discerning, intrinsic or subtle 
factors associated with publication productivity" (p. 211) . In 
addition, Pranulis (1984) reported that since the development of an 
identity as a nurse researcher was the only significant individual 
characteristic found to be associated with research productivity, 
studies are needed to identify influences on the development of this 
identity (p. 212) . With particular attention to women doctorates, 
Lia-Hoagberg (1985) stressed the importance of investigation of 
professional socialization and the effects of institutional, 
departmental, personal, and professional support systems on research 
productivity (p. 159) . 

Further investigation is needed aimed at addressing these 
recommendations and the current priority in nursing for the development 
of environments that support and encourage nursing inquiry (American 
Nurses' Association Cabinet on Nursing Research, 1985; Brimmer et al., 
1983) . Through investigation into the characteristics of our 
established and successful nurse researchers and their environments, a 
greater understanding of the factors associated with scholarly 
productivity is needed to extend the current body of )cnowledge on the 
development of nursing science. In addition, attention to contextual 
factors that promote identification of nurses as scientists 


and researchers will help to stimulate effective generation, 
dissemination, and utilization of research in nursing. 

This chapter has included a review of literature relevant to 
scholarly productivity in science, academia, and nursing. Studies of 
institutional productivity have been aimed at providing an awareness of 
scholarly productive sites. Individual productivity has been studied 
more frequently to describe, explain, or predict the correlates of 
scholarly productivity. Significant influences on productivity have 
included academic rank, career age, communication with colleagues, 
early productivity, time devoted to research and writing, institutional 
type, mission and policies, membership in professional societies, 
publication preferences, and teaching responsibilities. Measures of 
scholarly productivity have most frequently focused on publication as a 
quantifiable measure of research outcomes. Simple counts of 
publications have been furthered with other measures to address the 
scholar's web of influence and participation in the reward system of 
science. Eminence of the institution and the scholar generally have 
been found to influence productivity significantly with the effects 
from the environment and accumulated advantages providing a greater 
awareness of and resources to certain scholars. Recommendations from 
past studies on scholarly productivity in nursing have been discussed 
as relevant to the current investigation in addressing characteristics 
of leading researchers for developing an understanding of the behaviors 
and influences associated with recognized scholarly accomplishments in 
nursing. . 


In this chapter, the research methodology is presented. First, 
development of the study is described, including a description of 
environments. Secondly, the research design is described with a 
discussion of subjects and instruments, followed by a discussion of 
data collection and analysis procedures used to address the research 
questions. < .» ' 

Study Development 

To address the research questions, several exploratory research 
methods have been used for triangulation of data. Fawcett (1984), 
Sweeney (1985) , and other nurse scholars have advocated multiple modes 
of inquiry and have proposed that the nature of the research questions 
and the phenomena to be studied dictate the methods to be used for the 
research design and methodology. Illustrating the progress made in the 
design and analysis of qualitative research. Miles and Huberman (1984) 
have stated: "the expansion of qualitative inquiry continues, advanced 
in no small way by the reformulations of methodologists who originally 
took 'hard nosed, ' quantitatively oriented approaches to problems of 
generating valid knowledge; they have now shifted substantially toward 
the endorsement of content-embedded qualitative inquiry" (p. 15) . 
Miles and Huberman (1984) further support multimethod approaches in 
qualitative inquiry. , 



The first step toward addressing the research questions was to 
develop criteria that would assist in defining the term "established 
nurse researcher." Numerous studies have been conducted that examine 
scholarly productivity within academic disciplines. These studies have 
been primarily descriptive and correlational in nature. Variables of 
interest have been diverse and few have been significant predictors of 
scholarly productivity across all studies. Established nurse 
researchers were assumed to share similar characteristics. Academic 
division (nursing), highest degree attained (earned doctorate), and 
graduate departmental offerings were considered control variables due 
to the criteria for the selection of the environments (leading academic 
institutions). , *" 


One of the initial steps in development of the research study was 
identification of the environmental context of nursing's most 
established researchers. The assumption for this step was that there 
is a greater proportion of established nurse researchers at the leading 
academic institutions. Research and scholarship are esteemed values in 
higher education. Universities generally subscribe to the tripartite 
missions of higher education, instruction, research, and service, yet 
one of these missions may have more demonstrated value and attention in 
a particular institution. In many universities, research has been 
given such status. Kasten (1984) states that emphasis on research 
enhances the reputation of the institution nationally and 
internationally. Attention to the research mission is evident in some 



of the currently used classification schemes. The most widely cited 
classification system is the one developed by the Carnegie Council on 
Policy Studies In Higher Education (1976) which is currently planning a 
second revision. This classification system is based on institutional 
characteristics such as degree offerings, degrees awarded, federal 
support for research, student body size, and prestige of the 
institution. Two categories for doctoral granting institutions. 
Research University I and Research University II, specify the receipt 
of leading federal financial support for research activities. 
Specialized institutions may also receive sizable funding for research 
activities but the classification in this case is based on autonomy 
from the parent institution with the unit's major focus on a 
specialized rather than a liberal arts curriculum. Based on a review 
of the literature, an additional assumption of this study was that 
increased research and scholarly activity occurs in certain established 
institutions which can be identified through factors related to 
institutional reputation or prestige. 

In order to consider institutional reputation, the literature was 
reviewed for rating schemes developed and reported for schools of 
nursing. Each rating scheme had inherent weaknesses. Margulies and 
Blau (1973) conducted an original study of professional schools and 
based a listing on the subjective ratings of the five top schools as 
provided by deans. This study was later replicated (Blau & Margulies, 
1974-75) in the attempt to achieve a greater response rate and validate 
the original listing. Chamings (1984) used a similar methodology by 

" ^^u;^J ju^,Mip(y»*-tf:-'"^*" 


asking deans and nurse researchers to rank what they considered to be 
the top 10 schools. Chamings' study was an attempt to update the 
earlier studies by Margulies and Blau in relation to professional 
schools of nursing. As with the earlier studies, some bias must be 
questioned in relation to the low response rate for deans and the 
moderate response rate for members of the Council of Nurse Researchers. 
Hayter and Rice surveyed the literature in three nursing journals and 
developed a ranking of the top schools in institutional productivity 
based on first authorship. Hayter (1984) later replicated this 
methodology with a broader base of 13 journals of nursing. Still, 
restriction of range to a limited sample of journals and the 
retrospective time frame used must be considered in relation to the one 
form of publication productivity measured. Results from the rankings 
in these five studies are illustrated in Table 3. 

No one rating scheme seems adequate to determine objectively the 
top 10 schools. In evaluating any one rating scheme further 
consideration should include data relative to the respondents' 
available knowledge of history and current events in certain 
institutions, personal preferences for certain institutions, affiliated 
faculty or the associated curricular, and bases for decision making. 
In an effort to mediate some of the confounding influences, five 
different rankings were used in the current research to identify 
environments for study. 

Using the rankings from these five studies, a list of 10 schools 
was developed for the purpose of this investigation. Three schools 


were listed as the leading schools in all five studies and three 
additional schools were common to four of the five studies. No school 
was found to be listed in only three of the five studies. Eight 
schools were listed in two of the five rankings while three schools 
were present in only one of the five listings. The six schools with 
the two highest rates of appearance in these rankings were 
automatically included. Due to the nature of the ordinal data of the 
rankings of the next eight schools, four schools were selected for 
study using a table of random numbers. The final list of schools 
selected for investigation is displayed in Table 4. It may be noted 
that each of these institutions has a graduate division in the school 
of nursing. In addition, these institutions meet the 4.6 criteria from 
the Gourman Report (Gourman, 1980, 1983) used by Pranulis (1984) in 
selection of sites for investigation of nurse faculty research 
productivity. Further, although five rating schemes were utilized in 
the current research to develop a list of leading schools, all schools 
selected were included in the pool from which Wandelt et al. (1985) 
selected their six sites with 3 sites common to both studies. These 
institutions, selected as sites for investigation of established nurse 
researchers, shall be considered as representative of the group of 
leading schools rather than associated with any definitive ranking of 
reputational or scholarly productivity. 


Table 3 

Leading Schools of 

Nursing Listed by 

Literature Source 

Hayl-fir (1984) 


Margulies & 

Blau fi 

Haytjfir & Rice 


Blau (1973) 






Case Vfestem 


Case Western 


University of 


University of 


University of 








UxLversity of 


University of 


University of 


ISiiversity of 


Case WestPm 

California at 





San Francisco 

San Francisco 


University of 


University of 


University of 


University of 

California at 


University of 

CaTifomia at 

California at 


San Francisco 

T/OK Angeles 

San Rranciscx) 

San Francisco 


University of 


New York 


University of 


New York 




New Yorit 




Uhiversity of 


University of 


University of 


ISiiversity of 

California at 



Yale University 



Los Angeles 


Wayne State 


Case Vfestem 


University of 


University of 


New York 






University of 
California at 
Los Angeles 


BoKtai ' 


Uhiversity of 


University of 


University of 


University of 


Wayne State 

'■., ■ ■ ■ ■'" 









New York 




University of 













California at 
Tnfi Angeles 



Table 4 

Schools of Nursing Selected for Study Based on Previous Studies 

Frequency of Appearance School of Nursing 

in the Studies _^ — 

5 New York University 

5 University of California, San Francisco 

5 University of Washington 


4 j,-"^ Case Western Reserve 

4 .^' University of California, Los Angeles 

4 .■ ' ., • University of Colorado 

2 ' ■' <*" . Boston University 

2 2." ■ Catholic University 

2 ■ ''.'".- - University of Maryland 

2 University of Michigan 

"" Research Design 

The research design used was an exploratory method utilizing 
naturalistic inquiry with a multimethod, multi-site approach. 
Descriptive methods were used in the initial phase prior to the on-site 
interviews followed by combined descriptive and ethnographic methods at 
the study sites. Selection of subjects and instruments utilized are 
discussed in the following sections. 


Nursing deans from the 10 identified academic institutions were 
provided with a set of criteria and asked to nominate three nursing 
researchers at their institutions who met the criteria for established 
nurse researchers. The deans were also asked to nominate two 


alternates, should any one of the original three researchers be 
unavailable for the investigation. A sample of the nomination form has 
been included in Appendix A. Nominations were received from seven 
institutions, thus providing access. Access was denied in one 
institution and two institutions were categorized as non-respondents 
after follow-up attempts were made to solicit nominations. Selected 
characteristics of the participating study sites are included in Table 
5. All four geographic regions in the United States were represented 
by the seven institutions as follows: North Atlantic (1), Midwest (1), 
Southern (1), and Western (4). Six of these institutions were 
organized as Schools of Nursing and one as a College of Nursing. Nurse 
researchers nominated for the study were then contacted by personal 
letter to explain the study and obtain informed consent. Follow-up 
personal phone calls were made to all participants to provide any 
additional information on the study, to explain materials sent to each 
researcher, and to arrange for on-site interviews. 

Since the investigation focused on established nurse researchers 
in their environments, informed consent by the subjects was essential. 
A request for a expedited review was approved by the Institution Review 
Board at the University of Florida. A copy of the study consent form 
has been included in Appendix B. All research, however unobtrusive, 
may pose some degree of perceived threat of personal disclosure. 
Participants were assured that only aggregate information would be 
released and were given the opportunity to be involved in a review of 
the research findings prior to dissemination of the results. Separate 

Table 5 

Selected Characteristics of the Study Sites 




Carnegie Highest Member 
Classification Degree ^ of 
(1976) Offered AAU 

Catholic University Private 

University II 


Univ. of California, Public 
Los Angeles 

University I 



Univ. of California, Public 
San Francisco -'' ..." 



Univ. of Colorado, Public ^, ■ 
Health Science Center 



Univ. of Maryland 


University I 


Univ. of Michigan 


University I 


Univ. of Washington Public 

university I 


M = Master's 

D = Doctorate 


Doctoral program approved and due to open Fall, 1987 

Carnegie Classification (1976) : 

Research University I = included as one of the leading 50 
universities in receipt of federal financial support for 
research and minimum number of doctorates awarded annually 

Research University II = included as one of the leading 100 
universities in receipt of federal financial support for 
research and minimum number of doctorates awarded annually 

Specialized Institution = Medical center autonomous from the 
parent institution with classification as specialized in 
relation to the focus of the curriculum versus a liberal 
arts curricular focus 

American Association of Universities 


express permission was requested from the study participants in order 
to audiotape interview sessions to facilitate accurate data collection. 

Waltz, Strickland, and Lenz (1984) have reported, "Because words 
and sentences are human artifacts, they provide rich and varied sources 
of data about the personalities, thoughts, attitudes, and preferences 
of the writers or speakers, as well as about the interpersonal, social, 
political, and cultural contexts in which they are or were involved" 
(p. 255). Data collection was accomplished using four instruments that 
represent a variety of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Use of 
multiple modes of inquiry have been supported by Fawcett (1984) , Miles 
and Huberman (1984), Sweeney (1985), and others. The research 
questions with associated variable categories and study instruments is 
illustrated in Table 11. The Pre-Interview Profile along with the 
Perceptions of Successful Research instrument were sent to the 
established nurse researchers prior to on-site interviews. Responses 
from the participants were requested prior to the site visit. Along 
with original structured and semi-structured items, these initial 
responses received from the study participants were integrated in the 
On-site Interview guide to offer opportunity for clarification, 
specification, and greater depth. Information for the Organizational 
Environment form was collected during or following the site visits from 
a representative selected by the respective Deans. Instruments have 
been included in Appendix C. Each instrument will be discussed 
individually in the following section. 


Table 6 

Research Questions with Associated Variable Categories and Instruments 

Research Question 

Variable Category 


What antecedents and 
individual characteristics 
do established nurse 
researchers identify as 
contributing to and 
influencing successful 
research outcomes and 
other scholarly endeavors? 

Research Orientation 


1, 3 

1, 3 

What environmental 
variable do established 
nurse researchers identify 
as being essential to the 
support and success of their 
research and the research 

Research Orientation 


2, 3 

How do established nurse 
researchers engage in link- 
age or network activities 
to influence the dissemination 
and utilization of research 


Research Orientation 

1, 2, 3 

2, 3 

Refer to Table 1 for general classification of variables 

1 = Pre-Interview Profile 

2 = PSR 

3 = On-site Interview 

4 = Organizational Environment Form 


Instrument Development 
Pre-Interview Profile 

The Pre-Interview Profile was designed as a preliminary step to an 
individual interview with study participants in order to obtain 
background data on personal, positional, professional, productivity, 
and research orientation variables on the three research questions. 
The relationship of these variable categories has been illustrated in 
Table 6. Data were requested on the personal variables of: 
chronological age, marital status, number of dependents, gender, race 
or ethnic origin, number of siblings and birth order, and place of 
birth. Information on professional variables was obtained through 
items on educational preparation, postdoctoral work completed, clinical 
specialty, career influences, career age, and work habits. Positional 
data were obtained through items on academic rank, tenure status, years 
at current location, mobility, position or title, primary job 
responsibility, job related activities and student to faculty ratios. 
Limited information was included on the organization with only the 
perception of the primary institutional mission requested. The number 
of journal subscriptions was requested as network data and influences 
on scholarship as research orientation data. A portion of this 
instrument contained a request for quantitative data on number of 
publications, papers, grants, awards, editorial boards, and off -site 
consultations in specified categories based on both a career total and 
the previous three years. 

•jWi w^-x--.*. ■.--:.. ,-■, — »._- .JS^^^... --.>|^ifci.-" 


The Pre-Interview Profile was developed following identification 
of scholarly productivity indicators in the literature. General 
interviews were done with five nursing faculty members at one research 
university as an initial pilot and developmental step for the 
instrument. A revised form underwent further revisions following 
review by a panel of experts. Further testing of the instrument was 
done with three established nurse researchers at the same Research I 
University which will be discussed in a subsequent section. 
Perceptions of Successful Research (PSR) 

Campbell, Daft, and Hulin (1983) investigated antecedents and 
characteristics of significant and not-so-significant organizational 
research using a convenience sample of 29 scholars to obtain subjective 
recollections of the research process. The PSR instrument, adapted by 
Moody, Kearney, and Conlin (1987) with permission from the work of 
Campbell et al. (1983), was designed to identify antecedents and 
outcomes to successful research studies by nurse researchers. All 
three research questions were addressed with use of this instrument as 
illustrated in Table 6. 

Respondents were asked to think back over past nursing research 
projects and identify one that they considered quite successful, in 
that it had made a significant contribution to nursing. The notion of 
a successful research project included all kinds of research, 
qualitative or quantitative. A requirement for selection was that the 
research should have been completed, written, and submitted for 
publication. Variables addressed with the instrument included 


(1) efforts and results from the generation, dissemination, and ,/ 
utilization of the research (research orientation and characteristics 
of environments) ; (2) use of professional linkages (network) ; and (3) 
contribution of the research findings toward theory development and use 
in the discipline (research orientation) . Part I of the PSR included 
structured and semi-structured items on the background and origin of 
the research project selected. Part II contained 30 questions in four 
series, on a five-point scale concerning the same one successful 
research project selected. Initial testing of Part II of the PSR was 
done in two separate administrations of the instrument. Forty-eight 
researchers, predominantly from the southern region, who were nurse > 
faculty at research universities comprised the sample for the first 
test administration of 50 items. Items were eliminated and the 
instrtiment was reduced to 30 items based upon (1) respondents' comments 
indicating ambiguity, (2) high rates of non-response, and (3) low to 
zero correlations with other items with which they should have 
logically correlated. The second administration involved 57 nurse 
researcher respondents who were Fellows of the American Academy of 
Nursing from all geographic areas and not employed at sites selected 
for this study. Revisions to the instrument were based on analyses 
from both test administrations, considering individual and combined 
testing. A significant positive correlation was found between 
successful projects that were funded and when statistical significance 
was used as an an indicator of valuable results. The highest mean 
scores for the items were found with questions addressing 


methodological rigor. On the total sample of 105 respondents, the 
reliability indexes were as follows: alpha = .723 and theta = .745 
(p < .01). Minor revisions were made following further statistical 

Since it was determined that the instrument measured more than one 
single underlying factor and items were correlated, individual items of 
the PSR were used to characterize the subjects' responses, rather than 
providing total or subscale instrvunent scores. Themes with significant 
research identified in the original research by Campbell et al. (1983), 
methodological rigor, importance to the discipline, personal interest 
and motivation, and real world implications, were utilized in the 
analysis. . . 

On-site Interview Guide 

The On-site Interview Guide was developed as a qualitative data 
collection method using structured and semi-structured items and 
addressed all three research questions. The advantages of an interview 
guide include that it (1) provides for efficient time utilization, (2) 
is systematic and comprehensive by delimiting the issues, and (3) 
focuses the interview (Patton, 1980) . The combination of both 
structured and semi-structured items is intended to allow for a degree 
of objectivity and uniformity, yet still allowing for probing and 
clarification (McMillan & Schumacher, 1984) . Further specificity was 
added to the guides for on-site interviews with established nurse 
researchers based on initial data received on the Pre-Interview Profile 
and PSR instruments. Interview times ranges from one and three-quarter 


hours to three and a quarter hours. Interviews were taped to allow for 
greater accuracy in recording. Data obtained addressed the following 
variables: personal (family influences and personal antecedents and 
characteristics needed for research); professional (postdoctoral study 
influences and career influences) ; positional (expectations for 
scholarly productivity) ; organizational (institutional missions, 
environmental facilitators and resources; perceived support; research 
requirements) ; network (communication with colleagues and mentorship) ; 
productivity (early publications and publication preferences) ; and 
research orientation (influences on scholarship, research habits, and 
methods for continued development) . The instrument was tested in the 
pilot study, discussed in a following section. 

Organizatio nal Environment ' . 

■ ■■. r "■■,"*. . 

The Organizational Environment form was designed to obtain general 
environmental, particularly organizational, influences for each of the 
academic sites. This instrument addressed the second research 
question, as indicated in Table 11, and organizational variables as 
follows: geographic location; institutional type, sponsorship and 
primary mission; school organization; program offerings and sizes; 
student to faculty ratios; a research requirement for faculty 
appointment, promotion, and tenure; support services, sponsored support 
and resources; and the availability and services of a research support 


^ The form was critiqued by a panel for relevancy, accuracy, and 

ease of data collection. Each of the Deans was asked to have the form 


completed by a designated person during or immediately following the 
site visit. 
Pilot study 

In March, 1986, a pilot study was completed at a southeastern 
research university as a "rehearsal" for site visits and final critique 
of the study instrviments. The pilot site was similar to the study 
sites as follows: (1) public sponsorship, (2) Carnegie Classification 
as Research University I, (3) Doctorate in Nursing as the highest 
degree program, and (4) Membership in American Association of 
Universities. Refer to Table 5 for comparison with the study sites. A 
purposeful sample of three nurse researchers who met the criteria for 
established nurse researchers was used to test data collection 
protocols with three instruments: (1) Pre-Interview Profile, (2) PSR, 
and (3) On-Site Interview Guide. Evaluation of data collection 
protocols and instruments occurred in a follow-up group interview with 
the three researchers, the dissertation committee chairperson, and the 
investigator. Several editorial revisions on the Pre-Interview Profile 
and the PSR were discussed. Suggestions for elimination of several 
items on the interview guide were followed. The Organizational 
Environment form was reviewed by an associate dean and an 
administrative assistant from the Office of the Dean for clarity and 
completion ability. The main concern raised on data collection was the 
length of time for the interview process. Data obtained were deemed 
appropriate to the intent of the instruments. Preliminary descriptive 
analysis revealed identifiable domains in the data. 


Data Collection Protocol 
Data collection for this exploratory study was organized into 
three stages. Data collection in stage one occurred between March and 
August, 1986. Visits to the seven sites were done between May 20, 1986 
and July 15, 1986, for the second stage of data collection. Following 
lengthy analysis procedures for the data obtained in the first two 
stages. Stage Three of data collection occurred during January, 1987. 

Stage One 

The initial stage of data collection began with the nomination of 
and contact with established nurse researchers. Leading researchers 
were mailed a packet of materials containing (1) a personal letter to 
explain the study and request participation; (2) an informed consent 
form (Appendix B) ; (3) a schedule form requesting tentative times for 
the on-site interviews; (4) the Pre-Interview Profile; and (5) the PSR. 
This mailing was followed and/or preceded by telephone calls to the 
researchers to discuss the materials. If the researcher was willing to 
participate in the study, he/she was requested to return the signed 
consent and schedule forms and the two data collection instruments. 
Stage one consisted of both qualitative and quantitative data j 
Stage Two " , ■ 

This stage consisted primarily of qualitative data collection 
during the site visits to the leading academic institutions. The 
On-site Interview Guide was used for individual interviews with the 
established nurse researchers. Interviews were conducted at a location 


on-site selected by the respondents. Prior to the visit and while at 
the site, the Dean or her representative was contacted as a part of 
protocol and to gain access to the resource person who would be 
responsible for completion of the Organizational Environment form. 
Quantitative data were obtained with the Organizational Environment 
form for contextual information on the sites. 
Stage Three 

stage three consisted of qualitative data collection and was less 
formalized for the respondents. Established nurse researchers were 
given the opportunity to respond to aggregate findings from the prior 
two stages of data collection. Participants were mailed a summary of 
the results obtained from the Pre-Interview Profile and the On-site 
Interview and asked for a written response by making any notations on 
the report, completing short answer questions on a reaction form, or 
using any other method they felt was appropriate. 

Data Analysis Procedures 

Several strategies were used for triangulation of the data. Data 
analysis procedures were organized into three major stages to dovetail 
with the stages of data collection. 
Stage One 

Analysis of data in the first stage focused on the two initial 
study instruments, the Pre-Interview Profile and the PSR. The 
Pre-Interview Profile was used to develop a descriptive profile of 
established nurse researchers prior to the On-Site Interview, when 
available. Personal, professional, positional, and network variables 


were used for descriptive analysis. Data were categorized and coded to 
fit descriptive analysis procedures. 

Productivity variables were analyzed for type and rate of 
scholarly activities of established nurse researchers using a method 
adapted from the work of Pranulis (1984) . As described previously, 
four weighted measures of productivity were developed by Pranulis based 
on self-reports for a three year period: (1) publication productivity; 
(2) presentation productivity; (3) tangible products score; and (4) 
total productivity as the summation of the three other weighted scores. 
For this investigation, some adaptations were made to further consider 
the background of the established nurse researchers. Weighted scores 
were calculated with no distinction for single authored versus 
co-authored or multiple authored works in accordance with Ostmoe's 
(1982, 1986) recommendation. The following formulas were used to 
calculate productivity rates for two time periods, the past three years 
and total career. i-^--. ' -. 

(1) Partial Publication Productivity = total weighted score for 

the following items: 

Books 4 X n - 

Book chapters and monographs 1 x n 

Refereed journals 2 x n 

Non refereed journals 1 x n 

(2) Paper Presentation Productivity = total weighted score for the 

following items: 

International 2 x n 

National 2 x n 

Regional 1 x n 

All others 0.5 x n ; 

■^'■•■VT^t^j' ;- 


(3) Funded Grant Productivity = total weighted score for the 

following grants received as a principal (PI) or 

or co-principal (Co-PI) investigator as follows: 

Federal 3 x n 

National 2 x n 

Local sources (extramural) 1 x n 

University/college sources (intramural) 1 x n 

(4) Total Scholarly Productivity = Summation of weighted scores 

for publications, paper presentations, and funded 

grants received as PI or Co-PI. 
These weighted measures were further divided by career age to allow for 
greater comparison among respondents. Other forms of productivity 
reported by the researchers were used for descriptive purposes. These 

included: off-site consultations, service on editorial boards, and 

* °^' .''^' " 

research awards and honors . • ', - ' . - 

The PSR was analyzed in two ways. First, Part I of the instrument 

yielded responses to the critical incident (Polit & Hungler, 1983) or 

exemplar (Benner, 1985) of a successful research project. Data were 

transcribed, followed by a domain analysis of the responses. Second, 

the 30 Likert scale items in Part II were used for development of a 

total instrument score and descriptive statistics on the items. 

Medians were calculated for the ordinal data across all respondents. 

Spearman correlations were also calculated to consider association 

among items and against the four external criteria (publication of 

findings, presentation of findings, funding obtained, and predominant 

research approach used) for the project selected. Following this, 


items were sorted into themes identified by Campbell et al. (1983). 
Themes and niunber of associated items were as follows: methodological 
rigor, five items (questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11); importance to the 
discipline, 14 items (questions 5, 6, 7, 10, and 21 through 30); 
personal interest and motivation, six items (questions 8, 9, 12, 13, 
14, and 19); and real world implications, five items (questions 15, 16, 
17, 18, and 20). Thematic analysis was then used to characterize 
responses to these items. . v 

Review of responses on the Pre-Interview Profile and PSR were also 
used to individualize On-site Interview Guides and obtain 
clarification, if needed, during the second stage of data collection. 
Stage Two -• - / ♦ 

The On-site Interview Guide and Organizational Environment form 
contained the data for analysis in this stage. The interview process 
provided a volume of qualitative data for analysis at this stage. 
Verbatim responses from the interviews were transcribed and verified by 
the researcher in an effort to preserve the semantic coherence (Weber, 
1985) for analysis. These responses were initially coded into domains 
in accordance with the topical areas covered prior to examination for 
processes and patterns in the data. Word processing equipment was used 
for transcription to assist with editing and organizing data. The 
ethnographic method of descriptive analysis was used with the data. 
Spradley (1979) has stated "the essential core of ethnography is the 
concern with meaning of actions and events to the people we seek to 
understand" (p. 5). ^ 


Data from the Organizational Environment form completed at the 
study sites were used to characterize environments of established nurse 
researchers through description of resources and support for research 
and scholarly activities. Data were coded into domains to describe 
variables of the context, in this case the school of nursing 
environment. Selected variables have been used earlier in this chapter 
to describe the environment, as noted in Table 5. This also permitted 
triangulation of the data with the opportunity for comparisons with the 
responses of the established nurse researchers related to environmental 
facilitators and resources. 
Stage Three ' -'' " y ; 

Qualitative data were again the focus for analysis in the third 
stage, Sandelowski (1986) has discussed the need for quality checks on 
data with reference to the "credibility" of qualitative inquiry. In 
this stage, a quality check on the data was obtained through the 
subjective analysis of the established nurse researcher respondents to 
a preliminary aggregate report of findings. Kirk and Miller (1984) 
have described validity in quality research "as the degree to which the 
finding is interpreted in a correct way" (p. 20) . Reactions of the 
respondents was used to assess the accuracy of interpretation of 
perceptions of established nurse researchers and fairness of 
representation in the various themes and domains which emerged from the 
data. Respondents were offered the opportunity to provide additional 
information, suggest changes in the report, and/or provide a "minority 
report." Established nurse researchers' reactions to the aggregate 


report were compiled and compared with the findings obtained in the 
previous two stages of data analysis. 


Development of the study and research methodology have been 
presented in this chapter. A naturalistic inquiry paradigm and an 
organizational systems substantive paradigm provided the basis for this 
exploratory study which used a combination of qualitative and 
quantitative research approaches. A broad range of variables 
classified as personal, professional, positional, network, 
organizational, productivity, and research orientation were examimed 
and related to the three research questions. 

Established nurse researchers and their environments were the 
units of analysis. The means for selection of leading academic 
environments and nomination of researchers from these institutions were 
discussed. The study instruments were reviewed for development, 
preliminary testing, use in data collection, and analysis procedures. 
The following chapter will present the findings from the investigation. 


In this chapter, the research findings are presented. First, 
findings related to individual and environmental characteristics are 
presented by the variables previously specified in Table 6. Following 
this, textual data that exemplify successful research outcomes by 
Established Nurse Researchers will be illustrated. Finally, validation 
of the study findings will be discussed. 

The ethnographic method for qualitative data analysis was used for 
identification of domains and themes. Findings are presented following 
descriptive and ethnographic analysis. Domains were developed as 
categories apparent in the verbal and written comments provided by a 
majority of the respondents. When domains could be further unified 
under a broader principle, themes emerged from the data. Spradley 
(1979) has described such themes as "larger units of thought" (p. 186). 
Themes were developed based on recurrent ideas apparent in domains to 
exhibit broader principles related to the respondents' descriptions on 
a selected topic. Presentation of the findings has been organized by 
variables of interest as illustrated in Table 7. Data from the 
Pre-Interview Profile, On-site Interview, and Organizational 
Environment Form have been presented to triangulate the data from the 
Established Nurse Researchers under individual and environmental 
characteristics. The Perceptions of Successful Research instrument 



Table 7 

OrqanizatiCTial Scheme fca: Presentaticn of Findings, by Variables and Instnments 


Pre-interview Cn-site 










Faniily influences 

Postdoctoral work 
Clinical ^ecialty 
Career age 
Wbric habits 
Career influences 

Family influences 
Antecedents and 

Postdoctoral work 
Career influences 

Rank and tenure 
Jcb respcxisibilily 
Jcb-related activities 
Student-faculty ratio 

E>5«ctaticns for 
productivity ' 

Productivity Wei^ted measures 
of productivity 

Early publications 
Publicaticxi habits 

Perc^rticns of 
research success 






with colleagues ; 

with colleagues 


Mentorship ^ -« 


, ■.■ ' /■ -■ • .,-• 


Influences en 

Influences en 

Research habits 



Research habits 
Research pref erenoes 

to nursing 

Methods for continued 



Primary mission 





Si^port for 




Priirary mission 



Research requirements 

Si^port for research 


(PSR) provided both qualitative and quantitative data related to 
organizational, network, productivity, and research orientation 
variables and has been presented under a separate section of this '• ; 

Response rates for the four study instruments were as follows: 
Pre-Interview Profile, 95.24 percent (n=20) with supplemental 
information on the missing response obtained during the on-site 
interview and through biographical data; PSR, 95.25 percent (n=20) ; 
Organizational Environment Form, 85.71 percent (n=6 schools of nursing); 
and On-site Interviews on the 21 Established Nurse Researcher 

Individual Characteristics 

Personal Variables /$ *, 

Personal variables of interest included chronological age, gender, 
marital status, current number of dependents, race or ethnic origin, 
place of birth, and family background with data obtained through the use 
of the Pre-Interview Profile. In addition, family influences and 
individual antecedents for the researcher were obtained during the 
On-site Interview. ', 

Demographic varicibles 

Demographic data from the sample of established nurse researchers 
were obtained through study instruments used to address the personal 
variables identified in the study design, as illustrated in Table 8. 
The study participants' chronological ages ranged from 34 to 56 years, 
with a mean age of 44.67 years. The respondents consisted of 20 females 
and one male. The majority of the respondents were married (61.90%) 


Table 8 

Demoqraphic Characteristics of Established 

Nurse Researcher Sample 




Chronological Age 

(range 34-56 years) 








-*.'. ■ 

Race/Ethnic Origin 

White ' . >- 



Current Marital Status - .. ' \ 
Single ^ • . ' " ' \ 
Married . ( . . \- " ,- 
Divorced •: ...■-- ' 








Current Number of Dependents .. (20) 0.80 

. ' %•' (s=0.95) 

10 50.00 

1 ■>' "'■ V 5 25.00 

-■ ,at' -A ■"•'. 

-f'.4 4 20.00 
1 ' 1 5.00 

Place of Birth (Geographic Region) * (21) 

North Atlantic ?• ■• . - , j 5 23.81 

Midwest *' ' ' k ^ 9 42.86 

Southern ' ■ * . 4.76 

Western ' ' "• Ti *• 19-05 

Other Countries 2. 9.52 


Place of Practice (Geographic Region) (21) 

North Atlantic 3 14.29 

Midwest 3 14.29 

Southern 3 14.29 

Western 12 57.14 

Location of current position in academia 


with 50 percent indicating no current dependents. Seventeen states, 
the District of Columbia, and two foreign countries were represented 
through the respondents' places of birth. » 

Family influences 

Families of orientation . Family background variables are 
displayed in Tables 9 and 10 for the participant's families of 
orientation (origin) . Parental occupations varied with 20 percent of 
the fathers and 30 percent of the mothers having some formal college 
education. Fifty-two percent of the respondents were only (14.29%) or 
firstborn (38.10%) children with a mean of 1.95 siblings for the group. 

The On-site Interview allowed for further discussion of family 
influences. Respondents described influences from their respective 
families of procreation and/or orientation. Influences were reported 
in 90.48 percent of cases for either nursing and/or academics and 
research. Approximately one- third of the respondents described how 
educational attainment was stressed by their parents. One factor to 
take into account with parental educational levels was the context, 
whether due to family crisis or the Depression, which was described as 
affecting parental lives and interfering with life plans. Positive 
childhood influences reported by the respondents included encouragement 
of mental curiosity, creativity and asking questions, dinnertime family 
discussions, and reading. Negative influences were rarely reported but 
included parental concern for stable employment, a focus on marriage 
and family life for some daughters, and lack of socialization to higher 


Table 9 

Occupational and Educational Background of Parents of Established 
Nurse Researchers 

Father Mother 























occupations (20) (100) (20) (100) 





Teacher/School Administrator 

Homemaker (as sole occupation) .- ; 

Worker, skilled 

Worker, semi-skilled 

Highest Educational Level ^^. / ,- (20) (100) (20) (100) 

Grammar School or Less ^ . 

Some High School ., _ 

High School Diploma 

Vocational-Technical Training > 

Some College 

Undergraduate Degree ;; 

Some Graduate School * * 

Master's Degree 

Doctoral Degree ^.^^ 






























Table 10 

Sibling Influences for Established Nurse Researchers 


Total Number of Siblings 

1 • ■ . 


Placement in Birth Order 
Only Child ^ 

Oldest Child, not only 
Second Child 

Third Child ■■■■■^'■' 

Fourth Child 



























oldest child includes all respondents who have siblings and were 

firstborn. In the case of twins, both twins have been counted 

as first born despite time of delivery. 

education. Interestingly, three of the respondents (14.29%) reported 
that the idea of a college or university education was taken for 
granted while an equal number reported that such education was not 
viewed as an option in their family of orientation's context. 
Nonparental family of orientation influences related to childhood 
education, extended family members, and attitudes in the community 
where the individual was reared. 


Those respondents who were not firstborn or only children 
described interesting perceptions of sibling influences. One 
respondent reported that she had been influenced by educational 
attainments of her three older brothers. Others described role 
reversals with one second-born taking on the role and duties of the 
elder sister and two other second-born respondents described how their 
elder brothers compared accomplishments to those of their respective 
younger sisters. Another second-born respondent described how she had 
been "challenged" to achieve and stated, "[not having] the perfect 
start, it frees you up in a lot of ways." 

Families of procreation . Families of procreation were also 
perceived as supportive to. research and nursing careers. Spousal 
support was described by all non-single respondents for current or past 
marriages in three domains, educational accomplishments, home 
responsibilities, and research activitiies. In the domain of ' 

educational accomplishments, respondents' descriptions included actual 
encouragement by the spouse for advanced education and support during 
that past process. Home responsibilities ranged from helping with 
household tasks or child rearing, to support for a two-income family, 
to taking a major role in this area when the respondent was heavily 
involved in a project. The domain of research activities included 
activities of the spouse which promoted research whether through 
encouragement and understanding of the time demands for projects, 
demonstrating the norms of research and scholarly productivity or 
assisting with priority setting, developing equipment for the 


respondent's research project or providing technical advice, or 
providing an environment conducive to the respondent's research and 
scholarly activities. As an indicator of the responses in these three 
domains for spousal support, respondents' descriptions were classified 
as follows: educational accomplishments 35.71 percent, home 
responsibilities 57.14 percent, and research activities 64.29 percent, 

based on the 14 respondents in this subgroup for their families of 

y .■/■■" ' . ■ • 

procreation. . ^ v \, % 

In the families of procreation, influences from the respondents' 

children were less apparent. Respondents did characterize their 

children as supportive during graduate educational programs and for 

working parents and as researchers. No negative influences from 

children were reported but variations in interest and understanding of 

these children were related to the child's developmental level. One 

single respondent did state, "for most of my life I have not had the 

family encumbrances that [could] have deterred me from giving a full 

amount of energy to my career, to my work." 

Perceived antecedents and essential characteristics for a successful 


Another area covered during the On-Site Interview focused on the 
respondents' perceptions of individual characteristics related to 
success as nurse researchers. Respondents were asked to describe 
valuable attributes which the person must bring as antecedents for 
research and scholarship. Following this, they were asked what they 
perceived were the most essential characteristics for the nurse 


Table 11 

Antecedents and Characteristics for the Successful Nurse Researcher, 
Reported by Established Nurse Researchers 


Antecedents and Essential Characteristics 




Commitment and Motivation 
• Ethics 

' Knowledge Base 
. Opportunities for Learning 
^'', "Humility" and Seeking Help 

Mental Abilities 
Organizational Skills 
Articulation Skills 


researcher or scholar, especially related to ongoing research. These 
questions yielded similar character traits, knowledge, and skills as 
illustrated in Table 11. 

Antecedents . Character traits was the first theme of antecedents 
for the nurse researcher. This theme commanded the heaviest emphasis 
in the comments of the respondents and included the domains of 
interest, commitment, perseverance, creativity, independence, and 
ethics. First, there must be an interest in "asking questions", in 
"finding answers and searching for truth", "in solving the need-to-know 
kinds of problems", and in knowledge. The domain of interest included 


the curiosity, the wonder, and the "sense of fun" for research. This 
interest led to the second domain, commitment. 

Commitment included motivation, "drive", or the willingness to put 
the time into research and accept delayed gratification of personal 
desires. Respondents described this antecedent as the "tolerance for a 
lot of hard work" to the point that the individual "can't imagine life 
without research." This commitment sustains the interest in research 
and leads to the third domain, perseverance. 

Approximately 62 percent of the respondents described a sense of 
perseverance needed by the researcher which included endurance, stress 
management, persistence, patience, tenacity, and the ability of not 
becoming discouraged by problems that arise or failures during any 
stage of the research process. Respondents described this as a 
"tirelessness in the idea" and the sense of priority so that "[the 
research] gets done in spite of what else gets done or in addition to 
what else gets done." But, needed for perseverance, commitment, and a 
sustained interest is the antecedent of creativity as described by the 
respondents. Creativity included the inherent value of the research as 
well as being imaginative and being a "visionary" to "project beyond in 
time." One respondent described this as the "ability to rise above the 
morass of details and have a larger vision." 

The last two domains of the character traits theme were 
independence and ethics. The fifth domain was one of independence with 
reference to development of the idea, functioning during the research 
process, and being able to make decisions and taking responsibility for 


the research project. Independence further included courageousness and 
bravery for one's own convictions and taking risks as needed and as 
appropriate during the process. This was described as being a "self 
generator" or a "self starter." The final domain as an antecedent for 
the researcher related to ethics. This ethical domain was described as 
a "sense of honor" with the need for maintaining scientific integrity 
and the quality of a research project. 

The second theme of antecedents for the researcher focused on 
knowledge. The knowledge base of the individual was the major domain 
of this theme. This knowledge base included a solid background in both 
methodological and substantive areas for conduct of the research. One 
respondent described this antecedent as a grounding in the knowledge 
base and continued updating of knowledge. This domain of knowledge 
logically leads to the next domain, opportunities for learning. 
Learning new ways of doing things and continued development of 
knowledge and skills, or perhaps the appreciation for these, was viewed 
as an antecedent thus leading to the need of a "sense of humility." 
This sense of humility included the ability to recognize and admit 
weaknesses and problems and to seek counsel and help from others who 
can augment the knowledge base of the individual. ;■ 

Cognitive, affective, and psychomotor skills was the third theme 
of antecedents for the researcher. Vital for the researcher are the 
mental abilities, especially related to logical and analytical thought 
so necessary for research activities. One respondent described the 
antecedent as having the "intellectual, conceptual, and analytic 


skills." As other respondents described, this included clarity in 
thinking with the ability to identify relationships, "the intellectual 
ability to use the tools", "work[ing] with higher order abstractions", 
and thinking about both divergent and convergent situations. The 
second skills domain related to interpersonal skills in collaborative 
relationships and the ability to get along with and work with other 
people. Organizational skills were proposed as an antecedent by some 
of the respondents and included concern for detail and process and 
discipline for devotion of time to the research. The fourth skills 
domain related to communication. Articulation skills, both speaking 
and writing, were viewed by a minority of the respondents as an 
antecedent with some proposing these as more of an essential 
characteristic rather than as an antecedent for the individual. 

Essential characteristics . Similarly, essential characteristics 
for successful research also fell into the three themes of character • 
traits, knowledge, and skills and the domains illustrated in Table 11. 
The main differences between antecedents and characteristics apparent 
in the respondents' comments were that of degree or depth. 

In the domain of character traits, interest was necessary but 
became an enthusiastic devotion to nursing research. As one respondent 
stated, it is "the curiosity, desire, motivation to learn new methods 
or to extend the knowledge base." This depth of enthusiasm was further 
illustrated by a respondent who described research as "a passion for 
the substance of what you're studying" and a "real love for what you 
are doing." This value for research continued to be apparent in other 
respondents comments with an added dimension of the realization of the 


importance of the topic. One respondent described this importance as 
individuals "research [ing] things they really value, not just to 
research things that they think are researchable" in order to maintain 
the interest throughout the career. Again, this leads to commitment; 
commitment of the researcher to a research program. 

Perseverance was described but with reference to the research 
problem. One respondent described this as researchers who "just won't 
rest until [they] find out something." These researchers face 
"difficult problems" as part of the research but this perseverance 
allows them to "deal with them." One respondent illustrated this 
perseverance as " the ability to engage in something to the point that 
you forget what time it is and can't remember if you had lunch or not." 
In the case of essential characteristics, perseverance is the "ability 
to stick to long range goals." The "work ethic" was described with 
reference to long range goals in the research career of the individual 
researcher. Part of perseverance is a "sense of hope." One respondent 
described what she called the need for "positive skepticism" as an 
essential characteristic of the successful researcher. This positive 
skepticism was described as "a certain amount of hope for your study to 
pay off." So, part of the commitment becomes a belief in the research 
as an essential characteristic. This belief or commitment helps the 
individual to feel that there is "no problem that can't be solved" and 
of "[not letting] things defeat you." 

Creativity was described as an essential characteristic with a 
curiosity and "envision [ing] what the consequences are to nursing 
science." Creativity continues to be goal oriented for the research 


program in the respondent's descriptions, whether leading to the next 

study, "social change", or the realization that the research is 

"something great." Independence was again apparent through risk taking 

and courageousness but with the added dimension of and need for peer 

review. An ethical domain was also apparent with essential 

characteristics in terms of maintaining the integrity of the data for 

the outcome of the research. 

The knowledge theme continues to be apparent with essential 

characteristics for the nurse researcher. The background and knowledge 

base continued to be reported as essential for the nurse researcher but 

with the added dimensions of "keeping up with the substantive area" and 

having resources to add to the individual researcher's knowledge base. 

Opportunities for learning changed focus to learning from difficulties 

during the research process. One respondent described the need to: 

be open to all sorts of results in terms of the study, ■:.■-.. 
results to confirm and disconfirm the hypotheses and 
be willing to be led by the extraneous. . . It's 
the mistakes you learn from; the surprise findings. 

Another respondent stated that the "greatest learning is on the job and 

[that] you keep learning." Intellectual honesty or humility was 

described as the need for consultation and collaboration. Peer review 

was an important aspect of knowledge in accepting and being open to 


In the skills theme, mental abilities was the predominant domain. 

The continuation of the antecedents in this theme was present in the 

comments of the respondents. Respondents described the need for having 

a "research mind" and the ability to move back and forth between the 


theoretical and the empirical. Interpersonal skills with colleagues 
were not only for collaborative relationships, but also for support, 
reinforcement, consultation, and coordination of resources with the 
assumption of a leadership role on the research project. A greater 
number of respondents also reported articulation skills as essential 
for conducting successful research. These communication skills were 
for dissemination of results as well as to "convince others to believe" 
in the project in order to obtain resources and grants. Organizational 
skills were also needed for successful research for the creation of 
efficient and effective research habits. As an example of 
organizational skills, one respondent described the ability "to 
organize a flow or pattern of work that will work for you, [the 
researcher]." A part of organizational skills similar to the 
antecedents, is time management in order to "keep certain blocks of 
time that don't get encroached on by other things." '-,. „ 

Professional Variables ; a < ' 

Professional variables included educational preparation, post- 
doctoral work, clinical specialty, number of hours worked per week, 
percentage of time worked alone, career age, and career influences. 
Educational preparation and clinical specialty areas are illustrated in 
Table 12. The mean ages of the respondents' degrees were as follows: 
Baccalaureate 20.70 years. Master's Degree 15.68 years, and Doctorate 
9.90 years, with standard deviations of 4.81, 4.10, and 5.22 
respectively. Degrees held in nursing included 95.24 percent ;^ 
Baccalaureate, 90.48 percent Master's, and 33.33 percent Doctoral. 

Table 12 

Educational Preparation and Clinical Specialty Areas 





Master's ^^ 





Natural Sciences 

Postdoctoral Work 
Formal Programs 
Self-Selected Studies 
No Work Reported 

Clinical Specialty Areas . .,• 
Adult Health 

Community/Family Health .. 
Gerontology /Aging 
Mental Health 

Parent-Child Health/Maternal-Infant 
Women's Health 




















^^Double Major reported by two respondents, only nursing reported here. 
Two degrees reported at this level by three respondents, only one 

nursing degree is reported in the above figures. 
Formal postdoctoral studies varied in duration. Additional self- 
selected studies are not reflected in other postdoctoral figures 
when formal postdoctoral programs of study were reported. 


Three of the respondents (14.29%) had done formal, funded postdoctoral 
work. In addition, 33.33 percent have done self-selected course work 
and short programs while 52.38 percent of all reported no formalized 
postdoctoral study. The respondents represent a variety of clinical 
specialty areas. The mean number of hours worked per week for the 
group was 59.65 hours {s=10.02) with a mean of 45.08 percent of time 
(s=24.46) worked alone. Career age, reported by the participants as 
the number of years 'Of full-time academic appointments in a college or 
university setting, ranged from 6.5 to 22 years with a mean of 12.80 
years (s=5.10) and a median of 11.50 years. 
Postdoctoral study 

During the On-site Interview, respondents discussed postdoctoral 
education for nursing and were asked to rank the value on a scale with 
one being the lowest and 10 the highest. The mean value ranking was 
8.62 (n=21, s=1.92) with a median of 9.00 and a range from 2 to 10. 
Some of these value scores were qualified by the respondents based on 
motivation and skill of the individual, individual career goals, 
academic environment and resources without postdoctoral studies, and 
the strength of doctoral preparation of the individual scholar. 

The opportunity for formalized postdoctoral studies were generally 
perceived as positive experiences by the respondents. One respondent 
stated: "the postdoc is a time out for the scholar to gather herself 
together and to move . . . into starting up her research program or 
revitalizing one that has dwindled over the years." The main theme of 
the comments was one of opportunity, an opportunity to broaden or 


practice skills, to solidify research interests, to be relieved of 
workload responsibilities that may detract from research, to gain 
experience, or to work with a mentor or an expert in the field. 
Approximately 38 percent of the respondents described a positive effect 
of the postdoctorate in the application for and receipt of research 
grants. It was frequently noted that following completion of the 
doctorate, the individual is not prepared as an "accomplished 
researcher" or a "finished product." One respondent described the 
postdoctorate in preparation of the researcher as compared with basic 
nursing education: "I have come to believe that basically you prepare 
the beginning scholar just the same way you prepare the practitioner at 
the baccalaureate level . . . They are a beginning investigator and 
need to refine their skills." Another respondent stated: "I think the 
real advantage ... in doing postdoctoral studies will be going from 
the dissertation to having another piece of research underway, 
proposed, and funded before you go into the first faculty position." 
The major benefits of postdoctoral studies were described for novice 
researchers yet the postdoctorate was also viewed as an opportunity to 
"gain experience in another methodology" or in another area of research 
interest. In fact, approximately 29 percent of the Established Nurse 
Researcher respondents reported the desire to do a postdoctorate in the 

These comments on postdoctoral studies have been the "ideal" as 
perceived by the respondents. Additional selected quotations are 
included in Table 13. Limitations were also apparent in their comments 


and are illustrated in Table 14. The economics of the current 
situation with a limited number of well funded postdoctorates available 
was one commonly described limitation. The view of nursing as a young 
"independent academic discipline" was cited by several of the 
respondents compared with the norm for formalized postdoctoral studies 
in other fields or disciplines. Several respondents did indicate that 
nursing would be moving in this direction in the future. 
Career influences 

On the Pre-Interview Profile, Established Nurse Researchers were 
asked who or what has influenced their professional nursing career and 
their success in research. Career influences reported fell into four 
areas, family, educational, work, and personal, with some respondents 
citing multiple influences. Family influences were reported by 25 
percent of the respondents and included parental influences, childhood 
experiences, and spousal influences. Educational influences with role 
models, mentors, and faculty were reported by 35 percent of the 
respondents. Work influences related to peers, colleagues, the 
environment, and the work of others as cited by 40 percent of the 
respondents. In addition, some respondents (20%) cited personal 
influences such as a work ethic, commitment, desire to teach or do 
research, enjoyment of learning, and a personal quest for knowledge. 

The On-site Interview allowed for further elaboration of career 
influences. Career influences reported on the Pre-Interview Profile 
were supported by respondents in comments during the interviews. 


Table 13 

Advantages of Postdoctoral Studies 

Selected Comments _^_ 

"A way of putting together your skills and interests with those of a mentor." 

"To move self into a school setting where your primary purpose is research." 

"It's very difficult getting grants with no track record." 

"Critical to success in an academic setting where first of all promotion is 
based primarily on research programs and secondly . . . there are not mentors." 

"Allows you to broaden your research skills and to practice them." 

"To continue your dissertation research or to work with someone in that area 
because a lot of programs don't have someone that is in your area." 

"Other fields with which nursing interacts are seeing the postdoc as 

"A great opportunity to expand and extend as well as pick up the clinical 

skills." ,. 

"A chance of getting your feet firmly and solidly planted in your chosen field 
or research and you get a head start." 

"Clarify, reconfirm, and expand . . . knowledge base . . . and align yourself 
with a department that is very productive and scholarly." 

"Helps to really solidify socialization that the doctoral preparation starts." 

"It gives you more time to test ideas . . . and enables you to learn additional 
techniques, skills, ways of thinking." >• 

"To find out what you want to research and what there is to research." 

"Provides more in-depth experience in research." 

"Beginning investigators need to refine their skills, work under the supervision 
of more experienced investigators, and learn to manage their careers wisely." 

"A chance ... of getting some research beyond the dissertation and probably 
most important is getting some resources to help you go further." 

"To help you look at whatever you're interested in from different perspectives." 


Table 14 

Limitations to Postdoctoral Education in Nursing 




Demand for Nurse 



Limited salaries 

Postdoctorates viewed as "a Luxury" 

Limitations in good funding programs 

Limited mentors available 

Nursing as a young profession, academically 
Nursing is not yet at that point of requiring 

postdoctoral education 
"Bilingual" nature of nurse doctorates who 

have been prepared in other disciplines 

Need for doctoral prepared people in faculty 
and administrative positions 

Administrative roles as interfering with 
, research 

Matter of accessibility 

Limitations in mobility related to spouse 

r "• 

Respondents' descriptions were classified into three domains, human, 
contextual, and personality factors. Human career influences were 
referred to by 80.95 percent of the respondents and included family 
members and relatives, patients, teachers, mentors, clinical colleagues, 
faculty colleagues, and deans. One-third of the respondents 
characterized contextual career influences which related to * %; 

circumstances in education, practice, and society. Personality factors 
accounted for 38.10 percent of descriptions presented including early 
job satisfaction, career choices, creativity, determination, 
independence, control, and responsibility. 

Table 15 

Positional Variables for Established Nurse Researchers 


Academic Rank (20) 

Professor 8 

Associate Professor 8 

Assistant Professor 4 

Tenure Status (20) 

Tenured 15 

Non-tenured, in Tenure Track 3 

Non-tenured, not in Track .2 


Additional Job Titles (21) 

None ' • ' 5 

Administrative Positions ' ; » 9 

Joint Appointments .-- . - 

Clinical ' ' 3 

Research .• •' 2 

Instruction and Research 2 

Principal Investigator on Program Grant 1 





Reflects an additional adjunct position in addition to the 
administrative position held by one respondent. 

Positional Variables 

Positional variables of interest included academic rank, tenure 
status, position (title), program assignment, primary responsibilities, 
job-related activities, student-faculty ratios, years at current 
location, and expectations for scholarly productivity. Positional 
variables of academic rank, tenure status, and additional job titles 
are reported in Table 15 with 75 percent of the respondents holding 
tenured faculty positions at the ranks of professor (40%) or associate 


Table 16 

Program Assignment and 



. Responsibilities, 


in Percentages 





Deviation Median 

Program Assignment 






(0- 60) 




















Primary Responsibilities 

Teaching 16 

Administration 17 

Research 15 

Practice 17 









(0- 55) 




(0- 20) 



Assignments to specific programs in the School of Nursing reported 
as percentages 


Official contract responsibilities reported as percentages 

professor (40%) . Program assignment was reported as a percentage with 
35 percent of the respondents involved in teaching in one program in 
the school, 35 percent in two programs, and 30 percent involved in 
three programs. The majority of the respondents (75%) were involved 
solely in graduate nursing education at the master's (75%) or doctoral 
(65%) levels. Primary responsibility in research as reflected in the 
faculty contract ranged from zero to 55 percent with a mean percentage 
of 26.33 (s=16.95) as indicated in Table 16. 


Table 17 

Weekly Averages of Job-Related 



in Hours 












Classroom Preparation 





Counseling Students 





Clinical Supervision 





Clinical Preparation 




• 0.00 

Grading Papers 





Thesis Coiranittees 






Chair ^ 





Dissertation Committees 











Meetings , . ,.' 





Clinical Practice ' ~" - 

^> ■■; 




Research Activities 

17 ' 




Research Consultation 

18 • 




Writing (grants/publications) 





Community Service "- -* 






Percentages based on the respondents from the six sites with 
operational doctoral programs in the School of Nursing 


Weekly hour averages of job-related activities are reported in 
Table 17. Research activities, including writing for publications and 
grants and consultation on research, accounted for a mean weekly 
average of 19.50 hours (n=18, s=9.38) and a median of 16 hours. When 
mean hours worked per week (59.65) for the group are considered, 
research activities account for approximately one third of their time. 
This does not take into account activities peripheral to research, like 
service on dissertation or thesis committees, advising students, 
teaching activities where research may be the focus, or dissemination 
activities external to the job-related activities reported. In 
addition, 19.50 hours weekly average is also above the mean of 26.33 
percent as reported above in the faculty contract for primary 
responsibility in research. 

Although few of the respondents are involved in undergraduate or 
clinical teaching, teaching activities do comprise a major portion of 
their faculty role. Traditional teaching activities including 
classroom preparation and presentation, clinical preparation and 
supervision, grading papers, and service on dissertation and thesis 
committees accounted for a mean weekly average for the group of 23.44 
hours (n=18, s=9.03) and a median of 26.5 hours. When a 40 hour work 
week is considered, although this is well below the mean hours worked 
per week for the group, teaching accounts for greater than half of the 
contract time with the mean contract responsibility for teaching for 
the group of 46.25 percent {n=16, s=25.53). This indicates a major 
role of the group in teaching activities. As one respondent stated 
during the interview: 


It's not that I don't do as much in terms of teaching. 
In fact, in terms of this last June graduation, I had 
the most doctoral students graduating and the most 
master's students graduating plus I do a lot of 
research. So I don't know whether it's just my view 
that you can accomplish whatever it is you're inter- 
ested in accomplishing and that where those other 
people might look upon the same kind of amount of 
work that I do as a lot . • . Because I want to do 

Student-faculty ratios reported by the respondents yielded a mean of 

9.29 (n=12, s=2.72) and a median of 8 students per faculty member. At 

the institutional level, variable but congruent student-faculty ratios 

were reported by representatives of the administrative offices of the 

schools of nursing. 

Length of time at the respective institutions and career mobility 
were also of interest as positional variables. These respondents have 
been located at their respective institutions for a mean of 8.55 years 
(n=20, s=4.99) and a median of 8 years. Related to mobility, 
respondents reported the a number of career moves with a range of" none 
to 6, mean of 2.05 and a median 2.00. Two of the respondents reported 
their career moves as related to changes in their husbands' place of 
work . 
Expectations for scholarly productivity 

Personal expectations . As part of their academic position, 
research was an expectation. Respondents were asked to describe their 
personal expectations for research and scholarly productivity. The 
overriding theme of these descriptions related to the development and 
continuation of programs of research. Research activities were 
described as focused in their area of interest and, in some cases. 


accompanied by additional "peripheral" research conducted concurrently 
with studies related to the research program. Under this main theme of 
programs of research, three domains emerged, inner motivation, 
preferences, and productivity. 

Inner motivation related to perceptions of enjoyment, 
satisfaction, involvement, concern for quality, and making a 
contribution. Motivation for the research was reinforced by internal 
as well as external factors. For example, respondents reported 
involvement in research to please oneself or to "feel productive." As 
one respondent stated, "it's like doing your personal best and then 
[doing a little more]." Several respondents focused on the quality of 
the output rather than quantity. One respondent stated, "I'll try to 
do good quality work and if it's rewarding, fine, if it's not, I'm not 
going to sit and worry about it." The desire to make a contribution 
was also included in this domain of inner motivation. One respondent 
described the contribution related to theory development as "mak[ing] a 
significant contribution to science by testing out and validating some 
theory." Another respondent related the contribution to motivation 
when she stated, "if I didn't think it was important, I would have 
trouble doing it." Thus, intrinsic motivation is derived in part from 
the desire to make a "meaningful contribution." 

The second domain of personal expectations under the theme of 
programs of research contained preferences for clinical relevance, 
ongoing research activities, and involvement in multiple projects. 
Several respondents described a goal for increased clinical relevance 


of studies as their program of research continued. Clinical relevance 

was a function of the developmental stage of the research and, when 

relationships were supported, a change in research focus to 

intervention studies. This process of moving from theory to clinical 

relevance was described as follows: 

I'm seeing at this point in my own research development 
that it's really important to take on the challenge of 
research that is more clinically relevant .... I 
don't think we need a lot of more studies that simply 
darken the arrows in the model. 

The ongoing activity required of the researcher with a program of 

research was described by several respondents. One respondent stated: 

I think the other thing [research] requires is . . . ■ 

that it's active enough in your mind and your 
activities so that you don't ever put it aside. 
That it's sort of central and occupies your time, 
your mind, and your spirit ... 

Further, research activity was such that respondents described other 

projects occurring concurrently with research program studies. These 

were described as minor projects, hobbies, and peripheral projects. As 

described by the respondents, these additional projects became more 

prevalent as the individual became more established in their research 

career. Involvement in multiple projects will be further illustrated 

under research orientation and research habits of the respondents. 

The third domain of personal expectations concerned productivity 

discussed by the respondents. Productivity was described in terms of 

publications, presentations, and application for and receipt of grants. 

All respondents were committed to the dissemination of research 

findings as a personal expectation. Differences relative to 


dissemination were mainly of focus. One respondent described her 
personal expectation for dissemination "not as notches on your CV or 
notches on your gun belt" but rather as by-products of the research and 
"going as far as you can with [the research]." Another respondent 
described such continual research activity as providing no time for 
personal expectations but rather just a part of the entire process. 
Publication was described as the major forum for dissemination followed 
by presentations to professional groups. The personal commitment to 
the research program continued to be evident in the respondents' 
comments. Funding related to generation of the research, however, 
productivity was described more in relation to the application for 
grants rather than restricted to the receipt of funds. Dissemination 
of results following completion of funded research was described as an 
obligation for the sharing of knowledge. 

Environmental expectations . Respondents further discussed 
expectations at their institutions, of their academic colleagues, and 
the profession in general. Expectations of the institution were 
similar to those of the established nurse researchers with respondents 
describing the main expectation for research related to receipt of 
funding and dissemination of the findings. Several respondents 
described junior faculty positions that they had held previously where 
they were involved in research and publication while being socialized 
into the faculty role, in accordance with the expectations of the 
institution. Funding was viewed as an institutional value related to 
"paying your own way", giving visibility to the university, and 


providing the dimension of peer review in terms of the importance and 
acceptance for the research as demonstrated by one's discipline. 
Rank-related expectations were also described at the institutional 
level with similar expectations but differences in scope of influence 
for funding and dissemination as the individual moves up the academic 
ranks. As with the personal expectations of the respondents, quality 
was also reported as a consideration at the university level. Quality 
concerned the research, the sources for dissemination of the findings, 
and the importance to the discipline. One respondent described tenure 
considerations where "there isn't a strong or firm criteria in terms of 
quantity but everyone asks, 'Is this advancing science?', 'Is this good 
research?', 'Is it well done, thoughtfully done?', 'Is it really 
extending current knowledge?'." Respondents from three of the seven 
institutions reported unclear or undefined university criteria with 
respect to quality and quantity of publications and the fact that these 
may vary for academic disciplines in the university setting. 

There were no major areas of dissonance between the expectations 
of the respondents and their respective institutions. Most respondents 
described the expectations as "consistent", "similar", or "very 
similar." One respondent stated, "what I expect of myself always has 
to be primary, more than what the institution expects of me. If I meet 
my own expectations, then the institution has got to be satisfied." 
Differences described were in terms of proportion, emphasis, or 
inclusion of specific activities. Some respondents wanted teaching, 
clinical practice, or service to have added emphasis at the 


institutional level but without any decrease in research expectations. 
Other respondents described specific values which they thought should 
have greater emphasis, for example, demonstration of accountability 
after tenure, decreased focus on the profoundness or uniqueness of 
contributions, service on national committees, and the extended time 
frame required for clinical research. , • - 

Respondents perceived the expectations of their academic 
colleagues as similar to those used in the institution for promotion 
and tenure. Generally, to remain in the setting, shared values for 
research, funding, and dissemination of findings were present and were 
sometimes referred to as "survival skills." In addition, expectations 
for collaboration on projects with faculty peers and students, in-house 
consultation, and continuance of teaching responsibilities were 
perceived to be collegial expectations. One respondent described this 
as "continu[ing] to be productive and pull[ing] your own weight." 

In terms of expectations of the nursing profession, there was less 
agreement among the respondents. Generally, the respondents perceived 
that there were lower expectations held in the profession in general 
than those held in academe with the exception of scholarly subgroups 
like the American Nurses' Association Council of Nurse Researchers, the 
American Academy of Nursing, and Sigma Theta Tau. Some respondents 
reported no expectations held by the profession in general and that the 
profession does not encourage nurses' involvement in research. Another 
respondent stated that "the majority of nurses do not understand the 
need for research." Some descriptions from respondents related to the 


status accorded the nursing profession. Other respondents reported 
that "in nursing in general, it's a battle to stay a profession" and 
that "the profession as a whole [does not] have very many 
expectations." Another respondent perceived that the profession was 
"expecting more but we're still bootstrapping" and struggling with 
entry level. Other respondents perceived that research and scholarly 
productivity were valued in the profession but the "[expectations] are 
not well codified at this point" or that "they're not specific and most 
of the time they're at the goal or aspirational level rather than at 
the mandate level." Another respondent stated that the profession 
"expects doctoral ly prepared people to do research . . . and some 
master's people but not everyone." A few other respondents described 
what they perceived to be the profession's expectation for them in 
terms of their current functions and personal expectations. 

Overall, the comments indicated a need for greater generation, 
dissemination, and utilization of research in other than the scholarly 
subgroups where the expectations of the latter were consistent with 
those held in academe. As one respondent described, "research [should] 
be used to improve our status among other professionals [along with 
using] our findings in the clinical setting to improve nursing care." 
Productivity Variables 
Weighted measures of productivity 

Based on recommendations in the literature, weighted measures of 
scholarly productivity were used to illustrate the scholarly output of 
the respondents and are displayed in Table 18. The mean weighted total 

■ ■ > J^^'WP^''- 


productivity for the group was 44.675 (n=20, s=28.946) for the past 
three years and 94.643 (n=14, s=52.744) for total career. When the 
productivity measures were divided by career age to adjust for 
differing lengths of academic careers, the mean total productivity for 
the group was 4.267 (n=20, s=3.939) for the past three years and 8.424 
(n=14, s=5.736) for the total career. Following application of Pearson 
correlations on weighted productivity measures divided by career age, 
13 of the 15 measures had significant positive correlations with p < 
.05 as indicated in Table 19. For the past three years and for total 
career, publication productivity yielded significant correlations with 
both paper presentation and funded productivity. Three-year funded 
productivity was significantly correlated with three-year measures for 
publications and papers presented (r=.5733, p=.0082, n=20 and r=.8286, 
p=.0001, n=20, respectively) but total funded productivity correlated 
with career total weighted publications (r=.6647, p=.0036, n=17) , not 
papers presented. The range of total weighted productivity for the 
group was 2 to 113 for the past three years and 18 to 187 for total 

Other productivity; Consultation, editorial boards, awards and honors 
Other forms of productivity reported on the Pre-Interview Profile 
were used to further illustrate the respondents' scholarly output. 
Productivity in the forms of official off-site consultations, 
appointment and service on editorial boards, and research awards and 
honors received are illustrated in Table 20. 


Table 18 

Measures of Productivity for 

Established Nurse Researcher Sample 
Weighted Measures 

Weighted Measures 

Divided by 

Career Age 






Past 3 years 20 
Total (Career) 18 

Paper Presentations 

Past 3 years 20 

Total (Career) 15 

Funded Grants ' 

Past 3 years 20 

Total (Career) 17 

. . d 
Total Productivity 

Past 3 years 20 

Total (Career) 14 

































^ Partial Publication Productivity = (# books X 4) + (# book chapters 
or monographs) + (# refereed journals X 2) + (# non refereed 

^ Paper Presentation Productivity = (# international papers X 2) + 
(# national papers X 2) + (# regional papers) + (# all other papers) 

^ Funded grant productivity = (# federal grants X 3) + (# national 
grants X 2) + (# local extramural grants) + (# intramural grants) 

Total Productivity = a + b + c 


Table 19 

Correlation Matrix for Productivity Measures 




divided by Weighted Productivity Measures divided by Career Age* 

Career Age* (A)++ (B) (C) (£) (E) (F) 


(A) 3 years 

(B) Total 

.7826** 1.0000 


(C) 3 years 

(D) Total 

.7282** .5514** 1.0000 

.5877** .6759** .8403** 1.0000 


(E) 3 years 

(F) Total 

^ --. "■■ 




.5740** 1.0000 

.2979 .6149** 1.0000 

Weighted publications, papers presented and funded research projects 
for the past 3 years and total career divided by career age 


Indicates level of significance p<.05 


Letters at the top of Table 19 refer to categories illustrated in 
column 1 of this table 


Table 20 

Additional Forms 

of Pro 


ductivity Reported by Establ 


Nurse Researchers: 

Off-Site Consults 


il Boards, and Awards 


Honors Received 



ist 3 Years 

Total Career 

Mean Median 



Mean Median 




3.76 3.00 



9.13 0.50 














-^■^ , 



11 - 15 









21 - 25 




26 or more 







2.05 2.00 


2.00 2.00 



■ & 



.,.■ .* 








.:2 .■-■'">' 





- -3 ■ ■/ . 



■■ '■'■* V , 


■ 4 ;- , 





5 -— ■- -^^ 



,, . .'i 








0.60 0.00 



1.00 0.50 








"" ■ . . ~ ** 












4 or more 




Represents the nvunber of off-site, official consultations 

♦^Appointment or service on editorial boards 
Awards or honors for research activities 


Consultation . Respondents were asked to indicate the number of 
all types of consultation done during the past three years and during 
their total career. As illustrated in Table 20, more than 80 percent 
of the respondents have done consultation work. The mean number of 
consultations was 3.76 (n=19, s=3.34, median = 3.00) for the past three 
years and 9.13 (n=15, s=12.34, median = 4.00) for total careers. 

Editorial boards . Appointment and service to editorial boards was 
reported by respondents for the past three years and for total career 
as illustrated in Table 20. Eighty percent of the respondents 
currently serve on at least one editorial board. The mean number of 
editorial boards that the respondents were appointed to was 2.05 (n=20, 
s=1.57, median = 2) for the past three years and 2.00 (n=16, s=1.71, 
median = 2.00) for total careers. 

Awards and honors . Research awards and honors received by the 
respondents are illustrated in Table 20. Fifty percent of the 
respondents reported the receipt of at least one such award during 
their careers. The mean number of awards received by the respondents 
was 0.60 (n=20, s=0.82, median = 0) for the past three years and 1.00 
(n=18, s=1.68, median = 0.50) for total careers. It may be noted that 
this category was limited to awards and honors for research and not for 
other forms of scholarly productivity such as Book-of-the-year awards 
or honors received for teaching excellence. 
Early publications 

During the individual interviews respondents were questioned about 
publication productivity prior to awarding of their doctorate and 


immediately three years following the doctorate as indicators of early 
productivity. The mean number of publications prior to the doctorate 
was 6.50 (n=20, s=8.179) with a range from zero to 30 and a median of 
3.00. During the three years following receipt of the doctorate, the 
mean nximber of publications was 9.50 (n=19, s=10.392) with a range of 1 
to 40 publications and a median of 5.5. 

Since studies in the literature have supported a positive 
relationship between early productivity and total career productivity, 
respondents were questioned about the effect of early publications as 
an influence on career productivity. Ninety-five percent of these 
respondents reported a positive influence. There were three 
predominant domains related to early publications: practice, building 
on a theme and credibility. The practice domain was clearly 
illustrated by one respondent who stated that "publishing is a learned 
process where if you have accomplished a few, it takes away the 
mysticism of publishing and so you are much more willing to do it." 
Another respondent simply described the learning process and stated, 
"it detoxifies the mystique about publishing." This practice domain 
was furthered through reinforcement and encouragement with the 
development of greater confidence in the skills needed for publication 
and in their own ability. The second domain of early publications was 
that of "building on a theme." This was illustrated by one respondent 
who stated, "I had begun charting a course for myself on which I could 
build." The third domain was credibility, as demonstrated productivity 
and ability for the acquisition of positions, promotions, tenure, and 


grants. The overriding theme apparent in the respondents' comments was 
that of developing scholarly skills and the establishment of a program 
of research. 
Publication preferences 

Next, respondents were asked about preferences for certain types 
of publications. The overwhelming preference was for research-based 
publications in refereed journals. Books or monographs were viewed as 
viable options for the research when the amount of data required 
greater space and depth than was available through refereed article 
space. Preferences were also related to the data, as with 
multidisciplinary or specialty practice journals. A readership theme, 
or the audience the writer wished to address, was evident when the 
respondents described their perceptions of the most important factor in 
determining a source for dissemination of their scholarly work. As one 
respondent stated, "I want to reach the population that would be 
interested in what I found out." There were two components to 
readership: the focus and the distribution. The focus was apparent as 
the "appropriateness of the journal for the idea." The second 
component of readership was distribution, with respondents describing 
circulation and reputation of a journal. Appropriate journals with a 
larger circulation were preferred by several respondents. The 
reputation of a journal was described as "status", prestige, and 
"scientific standing." Several respondents cited which scientific 
journals they prefer and the limitations of others. 


Authorship preferences . Respondents also discussed authorship 
preferences, single authorship, co-authorship, or multiple authorship. 
Preferences and selected comments are illustrated in Table 21. One 
respondent viewed this as an ethical issue, based on the number of 
contributors to the project. Preferences were generally based on the 
nature of the research project. Some comments related to the amount of 
work done by individual contributors when there was a long listing of 
authors. Others viewed single authorship as limited, as one becomes 
involved in collaborative ventures. One issue emerged from the 
interview data: the difference between authorship and writing of the 
article. Multiple authorship frequently occurred but respondents felt 
it was desirable to limit the writing to a single person or to a small 
group, with two to three authors. 

Respondents were then asked to estimate their involvement in the 
three different types of authorship. The majority of the respondents 
(71.43%) had done some amount of all three types, or at least two of 
the three types (90.48%). Two respondents (9.52%) preferred and had 
done only single authored publications, while two additional 
respondents (9.52%) had done no single authorship preferring 
co-authorship or multiple authorship. Productivity for these four 
individuals was equally high whether single or co- and multiple 
authorship was preferred. For example, of books, chapters and 
monographs, and journal articles, raw totals for the past three years 
were 9 and 12 for the two respondents preferring only single authorship 
and 6 and 12 for the two respondents preferring only co- or multiple 


Table 21 

Reported Authorship Pref erenoes 

lype n % Selec±ed Ccntnents 

Single 5 23.81 "I've preferred single becavise I could get them done fast and 
Author get than in." 

"Having a publication that is single authored may be looked 
i^on more positively by the university." 

"I find I can ocrttrol iry tine better and work better and 
.. I dcn't have the aggravation of worrying about the other 

person doing their piece en tine." 

"Usually vtex\ you see a single author you vscnder >4io did the 
rest of it." ■ 

"I think it is very difficult for irore than one person to write 
a totally logically ccxisistent p^per if this person writes this 
piece and that person writes that piece." 

"Single authorship is difficult. There are only certain kinds 
of studies, ch^jters, review articles, small little things 
you do ijsually." 

"When you're on a project it ends up with one person writing and 
the other people editing. I dcn't consider that co-authorship 
althou^ that's the way it goes a lot of tine. 

"I see advantages in multiple [authorship] because ycu bring more 
dimensions to the p^per." 

Oo-Author 4 19.05 

Co-Author 3 14.29 

"If I can work with colleagues that are stinulating, that helps 
to get the work done." 

"I've also done collaborative things vMch I find to be very 
stiimlating and it facilitates writing." 

"I think most nursing research is ooUaborative." 

"The bigger the project is, the mare staff ycu have en board 
and the more people needing credit." 

"I think v\hen you get beyond three, you have to question 
the amount of work dene by the contributors." 

No 9 42.86 "Who cares v*io is the first author and vto is the second author. 
Preference The mere fact is that it was published period and leave it 

at that." 


authorship. Nine of the respondents (42.86%) had stated that more 

than 50 percent of their publications were single authored but three of 

these authors reported a recent change in the direction to work of co- 

or multiple authorship due to increasing involvement in collaborative 

projects. Generally, the preference was based on the nature of the 

study with a trend toward larger, more collaborative projects. Ethical 

considerations as to assigning credit to members of the research team 

or those being mentored was also addressed with collaborative ventures. 

Goals for publication . Publication goals, whether by type, 

interest area, or quantity was the next area described by the 

respondents. One frequent theme was that publications were research or 

data-based and directed at refereed journals or, in the case of a large 

study or when presenting a large quantity of data, books. In fact, 70 

percent described goals and preferences for research publications with 

further domains of preferences for clinical specialty, " , 

multidisciplinary, nursing research, or a representation across several 

types of journals. The group of respondents was divided in terms of 

goals for quantity of publications. Forty percent of the respondents 

denied having goals for publication output. Reflective of this 

subgroup, one respondent stated. 

The number or the quantity or this many or that many 
per year doesn't bother me at all. It isn't a worry. . . 
Perhaps before Associate Professor and tenure, but now 
I've got all these projects happening and you'd be hard 
put not to publish. So that's a worry I left behind. 

This subgroup focused on publications when they had "something relevant 

to say." Quality was also a focus in this group. One respondent 

:■•?'?! " 


reported her perception that "setting goals like that compromises 

quality." The focus on research providing opportunities to publish was 

apparent. One respondent stated, 

the important thing is doing the work and then exactly 

how much comes out of that research depends on the 

intellectual nature of the material and whether it 

breaks down into a couple of different discrete pieces , 

or one single article. 

Sixty percent of the respondents did report some goal but these 
were frequently ranges or a minimum number. The smallest goal reported 
relative to quantity was one article every other year and the highest 
was one article per month. In addition, one respondent stated a goal 
for 100 publications by a specific chronological age. The focus was on 
actual publications in print. As with the previous subgroup where 
respondents denied specific goals, the respondents who did state 
publication goals in this subgroup also indicated the opportunities to 
publish based on the research. 
Network Variables 

Only two network variables were of interest with the Pre-Interview 
Profile, professional societies and journal subscriptions, as included 
with Table 22. The majority of the respondents were members of the 
American Nurses' Association Council of Nurse Researchers (80%) and all 
had been inducted into Sigma Theta Tau (100%) . In addition, 55 percent 
of the group were Fellows of the American Academy of Nursing. The mean 
number of professional journals subscribed to annually by the group was 
5.84 (n=19, s=4.11) . ., 


Table 22 

Network Variables of Professional Societies and Professional Journals 

Variable El % man_ 

Membership in Professional Societies 

American Academy of Nursing 

ANA Council of Nurse Researchers 

Sigma Theta Tau 




Professional Journal Subscriptions 


V .-..- - . I. 


* ■ - . i 





10 - 11 


12 or more 

' > 
































Communication with colleagues , '' 

Communication with off-campus colleagues was of interest as a 
network variable and described by respondents during the On-Site 
Interview. As illustrated in Table 23, respondents reported 
communication with colleagues on at least a monthly (90.48%) or weekly 
(61.91%) basis and tend to prefer using telephone conversations 
(85.71%) or written correspondence (42.86%). The nature of these 
communications focused on research for the majority of the respondents 
(71.19%) with discussion of information, activities, ideas, theory. 


Table 23 

Communication with Colleagues* 















Frequency of Communications (21) (100) 


Several times per week 


Every couple of weeks 


Every few months to twice yearly 

At meetings or when the need arises 

Form of Communications . (21) 

Te lephone 


Face-to-face, personal contacts 

While at meetings 

This includes communication with colleagues in nursing and with those 

colleagues in other disciplines but with a related research interest. 

The nature of these communications related primarily to research 

activities, as reported by 71.19% of the respondents. 

* * 

Multiple forms of communications were reported by some respondents. 









methodology, resources, and suggestions for dissemination. Several 

respondents described these communications as "keeping up." Relative 

to "keeping up" in the field was the opportunity for "state of the art" 

knowledge and learning things in advance of published forms of 

information dissemination. One respondent illustrated this by stating: 

It puts you in the mainstream of what's going on 
and so you learn things two to three years ahead 
of time before they [are published]. You try 


using and learn [ing] from other people's experiences 
and instruments before they're modified [so] you 
can avoid blind alleys and mistakes. 

This opportunity was described by the respondents as available through 
formal presentations, informal discussion, and receipt of 
pre-publication manuscripts from colleagues. Discussion was also used 
for research related consultation on specific needs of either party 
and/or following referrals with someone also working in the area. 
In addition, other topics of their communications included professional 
organization activities, for speaking engagements, plans for meeting at 
some session, or relative to a specific organizational activity. 
Networking activities ' Z' 

Influences . Most of the respondents perceived networking as 
influencing the dissemination of their work. As one respondent stated, 
"it expands the base and [the number of] people who are aware of what 
you're doing and your contributions and [who] might contact you." 
Other respondents described how networking facilitated the peer review 
process, both formally and informally. Another positive influence of 
networking described by several respondents related to "name reception" 
so that the individual as well as the work is known. This awareness of 
the person was further described by other respondents as leading to 
more collaborations, paper presentations, and recognition in the field. 

Importance . Network activities were identified as important by 
the respondents and revolved around the themes of intellectual 
stimulation, discussion, and sharing. Two respondents described these 
activities as an "enhancer of motivation" and "solidifying what you're 


doing." Respondents were asked to rank the importance of network 
activities on a ten-point scale with 10 as the most valuable or 
important. The mean importance reported by the group was 8.44 (n=20, 
s=1.79) with a median of 9.50. Although all forms of networking were 
described, the main theme of the respondents' comments was that of 
"substantive sharing" with the social aspects described infrequently or 
less positively. The respondents described a variety of specific 
methods they use with their network which may be selected colleagues in 
their area of research or a subgroup of a larger organization. 
Networking with these sources had a serious, goal-oriented nature 
and/or a group purpose. The term "networking" did not always have a 
positive interpretation when it is used as a label for free time blocks 
at meetings. One respondent described how nursing was trying too hard 
to make networking "happen", but that the concept itself was generally 
perceived as positive. 

Value. To clarify the value of networking, respondents were asked 
which activities were most valuable for the nurse researcher. Three 
domains of these networking activities were apparent, initial contacts, 
non-specific contacts, and direct contacts as illustrated in Table 24. 
Initial contacts occurred through research meetings and organizational 
activities, where learning opportunities were available for both 
substantive content and for initial contacts to expand the network. 
Non-specific contacts occurred through informal contacts at social 
gatherings and meetings and were designed for maintaining contact with 
groups of similarly minded people, not necessarily in the same area of 
research. Both of these contacts led to more specific, goal-oriented 


Table 24 

Network Activities Valuable for the Nurse Researcher 




Research Meetings 


Collaborators/researchers identified 
Information on work in research area 
Keeping current in the field 
Broad exposure and opportunity to 

raise questions and get ideas 
Forum for evaluation of paper or 

research presented 



to research) 

Discussion and stimulation 

Non- Informal 
specific "Get-togethers" 
Contact or Social Meetings 


Friendly exchange 

Respect communicated for each other's 

Discussion and stimulation 

Direct Direct " -' 
Contact Communication: 
cor re spondence 

Discussion of ideas and obtaining 

feedback, guidance, validation 


Sharing of information, materials, 

Letters of recommendation 

Referrals - *.7: 

Special Interest 

Computer networks 

Interest groups 

Task forces 


Fostering of communication in specific 
groups or subgroups focused on 
a need, program, or task but 
specific to the interest of the 


contacts directed at the area of research interest. Discussion and 
feedback related to theory and research activities were common. 

Mentorship experiences, as a mentor and/or as a mentee, were 
considered under network variables and discussed during the interview. 
Generally, mentorship was perceived by the respondents as an ongoing 
relationship related to the career development of the individual being 
mentored. Perceptions of the degree or depth of this relationship 
between the mentor and the mentee varied among the respondents. In 
addition, several respondents described the issue of acknowledgment of 
the relationship by both parties. This issue of mutual acknowledgment 
created some difficulty, as expressed by some respondents, in 
quantifying the number of individuals mentored. The respondents were 
able to identify the number of mentors they had had more readily than 
those they had mentored. In fact, several respondents reported 
individuals who claimed to have been their mentees but, at the time, 
they had not perceived this to be a mentorship relationship. The 
respondents' perceptions provided two time dimensions to mentorship. 
First, there was the ongoing nature of the relationship. Secondly, 
changes in the relationship or types of mentor relationships occurred 
over time in accordance with the mentee 's needs. 

Mentors . The mean number of mentors reported by 20 of the 
respondents was 3.30 (s=2.96) with a median of 3 mentors. All of the 
respondents who had had mentors reported this as a valuable experience, 
though not always positive. Several respondents reported mentorship 


experiences but described them as atypical of the current concept of 
mentorship appearing in the literature, as a non-formalized 
relationship, or as having different characteristics at different 
points in time. There were two major themes apparent in the 
respondents' descriptions of the value of these experiences, support 
and learning. The support theme contained domains of encouragement and 
guidance related to career development. One respondent described the 
value relative to thS role of mentors as "confidence builders and door 
openers." The second theme was learning or the teaching function of 
the mentor. This second theme contained the domains of role modeling, 
transmission of values and "standards of professorial conduct," and 
development of skills for thinking, research, funding, or survival as 
an academic. 

Mentees. There was great variability in the number of individuals 
mentored by the respondents which ranged from none to 127. The mean 
number of individuals mentored by 19 of the respondents was 17.26 
(s=29.85) with a median of 8 mentees. Student mentees described by the 
respondents included research assistants or individuals they had 
directed through thesis and/or dissertation research. Other 
respondents focused on mentees where there was a sustained relationship 
external to expected faculty role functions. Several respondents also 
reported faculty members they had mentored. Of the 16 respondents who 
had been mentors, all reported this to be a valuable experience to them 

"7",- -_ J ivpiw 


Value of mentorship . There were three themes related to the value 

of being a mentor, gratification, learning, and generativity. Personal 

gratification was the theme most often described by the respondents and 

it included the rewards, pride, and satisfaction which accompanied the 

development and the further success of the individual they had 

mentored. Learning occurred as the second theme of the mentor role 

through stimulation, interaction, and reflection. One respondent 

described one of the benefits of the relationship as, "having somebody 

look at something with a very fresh approach, challenge your dearest 

assumptions, reject everything that you think is important, and help 

you evaluate what you've got. . ." Another respondent mirrored this 

sentiment by stating, "learning occurs both ways because I think that 

the mentee — you get to know her very individually and with that you 

get to see her perspective and the kinds of linkages she's able to 

make, just because of the person." Other respondents considered 

mentorship as "another way of learning" and as "a way of keeping you 

tuned up." Generativity with the transmission of values and training 

of the next generation of researchers was a third theme of mentorship, 

occurring at a higher level than gratification and learning. One 

respondent described this as: i ■ 

I think any time you are involved in helping another 
person grow and develop there is a certain kind of 
beneficial influence that when you bring them that 
experience, there's a satisfaction, a certain amount 
that's reinforced that they're carrying on your 
values. . . It's like children with a kind of -- 

- regeneration and extension. •' ' ' 

Another respondent described the transmission of a value system as 

adding a philosophic dimension to nursing practice. Still another 


respondent identified mentorship through generativity as a personal 

. . . it's more of a personal variable because [it's 
through] your knowledge of them more in-depth as people 
that you clearly gain as a mentor plus the exercise 
of generativity that's so pervasive in being in the role 
of a teacher. . . . The giving to the next generation 
is very rewarding. 

Roles of the mentor . The respondents who had served as mentors 

were asked in what ways they perceived their mentoring activities to be 

valuable for the mentees' development as a researcher. Their 

activities fell into four major areas or roles, role model, advisor, 

supporter, and facilitator. As a role model, respondents provided 

their mentees with exposure to a successful researcher. Several 

respondents described how mentees viewed the mentor's commitment to 

research. One respondent described how the mentee "lived" the research 

process with the mentor seeing all the problems along with the "nice 

scientific progress." Another respondent described how the mentee 

"participated [at various stages of the research process] without 

having to shoulder the blame for anything that went wrong." The second 

domain of mentoring activities was that of advisor. The mentor had 

certain expectations of mentees and provided them with assistance on 

design, methodology, analysis, problem solving, and the development of 

specific skills, especially writing skills. Being an advisor involved 

activities of critique, discussion, and counseling and was related to 

the teaching and learning roles of mentor and mentee with respect to 

research. The third domain was supportive activities used by the 

mentor in building confidence and reinforcing efforts of the mentees. 


Respondents described the value of constructive critique and comments, 

trying always to "accentuate the positives" and to leave the mentee 

with "something of an accomplishment." One respondent described her 

style as "instill [ing] enthusiasm and foster [ing] growth without 

destroying what they come with." This domain was individualized to the 

mentee' s personality and ability and illustrated by another respondent 

who described providing feedback at the individual's highest level of 

integration: • ;f * 

The quality of the feedback, feedback so as it matches 
with what they can aspire to .... I think that's 
an important thing to give to the person so that they 
can be stimulated to do their best. 

The fourth domain included activities for facilitation of the mentee 's 

career development. These activities related to counseling about 

career decisions, development of a research program, and providing 

opportunities for dissemination of research through publications and 

presentations. - - 

Research Orientation - 

Variables of interest related to research orientation included 
research success influences, preferences, habits, and methods for 
continuing development. 
Research success influences 

Similar to career influences discussed earlier with professional 
variables, research success influences indicated by the respondents 
fell into three major domains: colleagues and the work environment, 
educational preparation, and personal characteristics. Collegial and 
work environment influences were reported by 40 percent of the 


respondents and were attributed to specific role models, mentors, 
co-investigators, collegial support, and promotion of research in the 
environmental context. Educational preparation as an influence on 
their research success was cited by 40 percent of the respondents based 
on perceived strength of their preparation, experiences and 
requirements during various educational programs, and mentors, role 
models and advisers. Personal characteristics influencing research 
success were also reported by 40 percent of the respondents. These 
personal characteristics included the following: "the tendency to 
persist with complex tasks", "self motivation and perseverance", 
"curiosity and internal motivation", "hard work and dedication", 
"energy and commitment", "hard work and creativeness", and creativity, 
desire, stubbornness and persistence. One respondent described her own 
intellectual functioning as the "ability to do more work per hour than 
average so [she] can stand overload created by research." To a lesser 
extent than with career influences, the fourth domain included 
influences of spouses and friends other than nursing colleagues 
providing encouragement, support and guidance, as reported by 15 
percent of the respondents. 

Human influences on research success . In terms of influences on 
research success described during the On-Site Interview, human factors 
were described from mentors, colleagues, teachers, faculty, and deans 
by 57.14 percent of the respondents. Although one respondent 
identified the influence of negative role models in nursing, no 
individuals external to nursing, doctoral education, or research 
programs were identified as influencing research success. 



Contextual influences on research success . Two-thirds of the 
respondents described contextual influences for research success 
including educational preparation, research opportunities, 
environmental factors, and reward systems. Educational influences 
occurred at both the undergraduate and graduate levels with the end 
result of a strong preparation and appreciation for research. Research 
opportunities for the respondents occurred in practice or as a result 
of a special program" or conference attended which led to the 
development of further interest. Environmental influences fell into 
the areas of normative expectations for research instilled early in the 
academic career and the reward system in place for reinforcement. As 
one respondent stated, "Let's face it. I think a major motivating 
factor is the reward system, the expectation system .... So external 
sanctions were in place here. Rewards and sanctions." 

Personality influences on research success . Personality factors 
related to research success were described by 47.62 percent of 
respondents and included feelings of boredom and stagnation, inner 
motivation, enjoyment of and desire to do research, disillusionment 
with role models, the "joy of achievement", pride, and the need for 
credibility. Other personality traits included intelligence, thinking 
analytically, and "giving primacy to career development." Basically, 
during the interviews, respondents supported earlier written responses 
on influences but demonstrated more interpersonal and family influences 
related to career influences and educational and environmental factors 
as influencing their research success. 


Research preferences 

Established nurse researcher respondents were asked about their 
research preferences during the On-site Interview. Utilizing 
categories developed by Bloch (1985), these preferences were reported 
predominantly in two areas, (1) fundamental processes of biology and 
behavior and (2) nursing practice as illustrated in Table 25. The 
majority (80.95%) of the respondents' preferences related to client 
issues, with 95.25 percent of these respondents reporting the majority 
of their research and publications in this area as well. The one 
respondent who reported that most research and publications were not in 
the area of research preference described a diversity of areas related 
to the "eclectic" approach of her research program. Factors which 
influenced preferences for fundamental processes or practice areas fell 
into three themes, interest, educational background, and clinical 
practice background. Respondents reported their interest and 
commitment to the area of preference as influencing the focus of their 
research efforts. One respondent described this interest as follows: 
"it's the state of the art — where we are and what we need to know — 
and to really try to come up with implications for practice." 
Educational background and preparation in graduate programs, 
particularly doctoral education, and past experiences as clinicians 
were described as a major influence on their chosen area of research 
preference. Respondents with preferences in the areas of fundamental 
processes and nursing practice often reported preferences and research 
studies in both areas, especially when involved in multiple projects or 
when engaged in large multiple purpose projects. 


Table 25 

Research Preferences Reported by Established Nurse Researchers 

Preferences . " 1. 

Primary Research Preferences 

Fundamental processes of biology 
and behavior 

Nursing practice (nursing process 
and nursing intervention) 

Nursing education (educational 

Nursing profession (focused on the 









Areas of Preference Reported 

1 area 

2 areas 

■ More than 2 areas 








Categories developed by Bloch (1985, p. 133) 

Percentages >100% due to multiple areas of preference reported 
by 13 respondents reflecting work on multiple purpose projects 
or on multiple projects. 

. » 


A minority of the respondents reported preference in two of the 
other categories of research developed by Bloch (1985). Individuals 
preferring nursing education described this as the focus of their 
present practice with students as the units of analysis. One 
respondent further pointed to the need for research based data for good 
decision making in academic nursing settings. For the respondents who 
stated a preference for research on the profession of nursing, interest 
and early professional organizational influences were described as 
leading them to this area. 

As part of the selection process for established nurse 
researchers, respondents were identified as having programs of 
research. These were described during the interview as providing data 
for further development of the knowledge base of nursing. Clinical 
problems or patient conditions were the focus of 61.90 percent of the 
programs of research. In addition, 14.29 percent of the research 
programs related to physiologic conditions, behaviors, or health 
problems utilizing basic research. Research programs related to the 
profession of nursing (14.29%) were concerned with assessment, ethical, 
and political behaviors of nurses, ultimately affecting nursing care to 
clients. Two respondents (9.52%) had research programs focused on the 
academic preparation of nurses but these researchers described 
additional research projects which utilized similar concepts and 
theoretical bases in their respective clinical specialty areas. In 
general, the respondents' programs of research were contributory to the 
development of knowledge in nursing and ultimately providing data which 
would be clinically relevant. 


Research habits 

A sense of commitment to research continued to be apparent in the 

respondents' descriptions of their research habits during the On-Site 

Interview. Several respondents characterized their habits as 

"sporadic" with this sporadic nature descriptive of their visible 

productivity and not inclusive of the reflective time for idea 

generation and reading literature in their area of interest. This was 

described by one respondent who stated, "there are probably equal 

periods of taking in, reflection and not 'outputting' anything and 

periods of equal productivity." Another respondent illustrated her 

research habits in this manner: 

I'm what I call a "marathon worker." I don't do a 
constant output from day to day, week to week but I'll 
/do an incredible output in one block of time and then 
\ nothing. It's not "nothing." It's like subterranean 
'work that's going on before that big output. 

The general themes of research habits for the respondents were 

concentration and devotion to the project (s). There were five major 

domains under these themes: creating an environment for productivity, 

time management, the ongoing nature of the work, being methodical, and 

being involved in multiple projects. Another domain reported by 

approximately 43 percent of the respondents was related to 

collaborative work. 

Creating an environment for productivity . The first domain of 

research habits apparent in the respondents ' comments was the creation 

of an environment for productivity. Freedom from distractions and 

providing the opportunity for concentration were essential in the 


developmental and final stages of the research project especially 
related to writing of the proposal or findings. As one respondent 
stated, "a quiet environment is definitely important to concentration." 
Distractions from telephone calls, unscheduled visits by people, and 
socializing in the hallways were cited as problems to working in the 
office. Two respondents described the habit of getting to the office a 
few hours early and working on their research before the usual 
activities could interrupt them. The major way respondents freed 
themselves from such distractions was to have an alternate site for 
work ~ at home, in another office, or in a library. An office at home 
was most frequently described as the preference for writing where 
materials such as copies of articles and the data set and where word 
processors, typewriters, or blank paper and pencils were provided. The 
home environment also allowed the opportunity for moving around without 
breaking one's concentration. In addition, several respondents 
described family members as respecting their need for uninterrupted 

Other sites used by the respondents for developing a problem or 
for writing were additional offices on campus or libraries. One 
respondent described the use of quieter off-campus libraries where she 
could concentrate on the task without interruptions from students, 
colleagues, or telephone messages. An important environmental 
influence on this preference for working out of the office was the 
support from school administration for doing this and not requiring a 
certain number of hours per day or week on site. Respondents reported 

~ >ov'^- 


their perceptions of trust from administration but also described the 
inherent accountability in that evidence of productivity was expected 
from administration, colleagues, and themselves. 

Time management . Strategies for time management used by 
respondents included using blocks of time and creating the time for 
research activities. Concentration and devotion to the project were 
also provided for by using blocks of time. One respondent described 
this as, "I prefer to work intensively for periods of time so I don't 
lose my thinking because otherwise it takes me so long to catch up." 
Another respondent reported, "every chance I get, I take the block of 
time to immerse myself." These blocks of time were usually a minimum 
of one day in length and were devoted to the idea generation and the 
writing phases of the research process. Working on the project for 
only short periods was reported by one respondent but the pervasive 
attitude was that of commitment to an ongoing effort. 

Respondents used several strategies for making time for research 
including adding the time rather than eliminating other professional 
activities, placing limits on selected professional activities, setting 
and respecting priorities, and using time efficiently. In the area of 
adding time, respondents described working on weekends, in evenings, on 
vacations, and during sabbaticals. One respondent stated, "I basically 
consider that I'm working a six-day week and that may mean I work at 
home one of those days." Another respondent reported, "If I'm wanting 
to meet a deadline, I will work through until I meet my deadline 
regardless of how many hours it takes me to do that." And still 


another respondent described, "if you don't have [the time], you carve 
it out between 11:00 and 12 midnight." Several other respondents 
stated they just worked hard with one respondent adding, "there's only 
one speed, 'full ahead'." 

Yet, several respondents described having to place limitations on 
certain activities. These limitations required setting priorities and 
respecting those decisions. Limitations placed on other activities 
were in the areas of travel, paper presentations, consultation, 
clinical practice, committee work, and socializing with others. One 
respondent reported, "I am more discriminating in what I say I will do 
as far as presentations. I don't talk about 1500 topics any more. . ." 
Another respondent described similar limitations and stated, "you have 
to say 'no' to some committees, . . .to some speaking engagements — so 
you learn what you can say 'no' to and what you say 'yes' to." This 
was further described by another respondent as "making choices." Part 
of these limitations was, as one respondent stated, "knowing what your 
personal limit is." Although time was added to professional activities 
and limitations were placed on others, respondents still described the 
need for a "balanced life" and working toward some reward as a goal 
once the work is finished. Making difficult decisions as to priorities 
included these self-selected limitations. Further, once priorities for 
research were set, it was vital that they be respected, whether it was 
the number of speaking engagements accepted, the number of abstracts 
submitted, or maintaining the blocks of time for research and writing 
each week. 


Organization of activities and efficient use of time were part of 

the respect for time and the priorities set. Some respondents stated, 

"avoid the trivial", "don't sit around wasting time", and "keep 

meetings efficient." Another strategy used by the respondents is the 

integration of teaching, research, and service as part of their faculty 

roles. This was described by one respondent in the following manner: 

The secret to my still being alive is integration 
and what I try to do is to integrate many elements 
" of my faculty role to the extent I can. . . And I 
really try to use what I study as a vehicle for 
what I teach and what I teach as a vehicle for 
furthering what I study. . . So a block of time 
is multi-purpose time. 

The domain of ongoing activity or effort involved a sustained 

engagement in the research and the mental work over time. One 

respondent described her activity: 

I try to do something every day that's pushing [the 
research] forward. . . so that I feel like I'm always 
doing something even if it's [pushing] the trivial 
parts of it forward. That serves the purpose also 
of keeping my mind on the project so that when I get 
those blocks of time, I can get into it because to 
me it's not purely time, it's time as interpreted by 
available energy level when you've got that time. 

Another respondent reported, "the research is so intertwined that I 

probably do something for the research every day but chunks of it are 

visible and chunks of it are totally in the data." 

This ongoing nature related to the mental processes as well as 

other supportive activities like collecting articles, reading, 

maintaining an "idea file" for other projects, and writing. Although 

the research was always ongoing, respondents' styles differed in how 

they implemented this continued activity. One example of this related 


to writing. Several respondents tried to write something every day. 

One respondent described this: 

One of the other things I [do] is write on an ongoing 
basis rather than waiting to complete something. • . 
Even if what I write now has to be changed six months 
later or completely revamped, I find writing important 
from a niomber of standpoints. The first thing is that 
when you're fresh . . . you put [the ideas] down so 
that you don't lose them. The other is that when I 
write, I'm more able to think at a different level of 
intensity and vigor than when I'm not writing. I'm 
more engaged. ' 

Other respondents reported times when little writing was done, almost 

like a period of incubation. Then, they were able to produce large 

amounts in a short period. One of the respondents described these 

periods of variable output: ' 

My optimum productivity seems to come. . . in my 

busiest time. I'll read and sit and catch up on 

my journal articles during the other time but sort 

of like in February, something goes off in me and 

I'll just sit down and write. I've noticed that. 

We have here a bimodal pattern connected with some , . 

kind of biorhythm but I don't know what happens to 

me every six months. 

The important aspect transmitted by the respondents was that the 

research was never really put aside. Something was being done at all 

times, whether there was tangible evidence of this or not. 

The fourth domain included evidence that these research habits 

were not haphazard efforts. Respondents saw themselves as methodical, 

organized, and careful researchers. Being methodical and organized was 

most frequently described in relation to the development and planning 

phases of the project with some respondents providing a large amount of 

time, structure, and effort at this point to ensure the accomplishment 


of the research purposes. One respondent described this as, "I'm super 

organized so that I'll invest an incredible amount of time in setting 

something up and then it almost runs itself." Another respondent 

described this up front effort similarly and stated, "later I'll follow 

my own directions. . ., I just act like a kind of robot." Respondents 

also described their carefulness and desire for accuracy. As one 

respondent reported, "it really helps to keep on top, to be organized, 

anticipative, and also handle a large amount of detail." Use of 

deadlines and time frames were illustrated by several of the 

respondents. , • . 

The fifth domain of research habits contained the respondents' 

preference for involvement in multiple projects. As reported 

previously under personal expectations, the more established nurse ' 

researchers tend to be involved in multiple projects. One respondent 

reported, "unless I've got five or six projects going on, I'm just not 

happy." Another respondent described how, during the period of one 

day, she "may have dimensions of a couple of studies going on." 

Although this seems to be a preference, another respondent described 

the utility for involvement in multiple projects: 

It became quickly apparent to me that if I was going to 
do well here, that I couldn't have just one study 
happening ... If I've got two or three studies going 
that need my attention and my expertise ... it is not 
nearly as stressful to me than having one little darling 
study that isn't doing or accruing patients as it should 
or whatever. I do the best when I have more than one ... 

Another respondent described her recent change to working on multiple 

projects after having completed a certain number of studies in serial 


order but that a progression and a building of the work is essential 
for moving toward something significant. In their descriptions of the 
multiple projects, most respondents indicated that these projects were 
at different points, some at the proposal stage, some awaiting funding, 
some in data collection, some in analysis, and some at the point of 
writing the final results. 

Collaborative efforts with colleagues, especially ccimpus 
colleagues in nursing and in other disciplines, was described by 43 
percent of the respondents. The important aspect of this transmitted 
by the respondents was discussion with colleagues whether on a solo 
project or a team project. On a solo project, collaboration was used 
as a form of peer review for feasibility and merit of the project. 
This was described by one respondent who stated, "I usually check [my 
idea] out with a couple of colleagues and if they think it has merit, 
[I] move right along." Although not on the same project, a mutual 
helping relationship was described by several respondents for efforts 
of this nature along with consultation on specific areas when needed. 
Collaborative relationships on team projects were described in 
developing, conducting, and completing the project with opportunities 
for "debate," problem solving, division of labor, and refinement of 
final manuscripts. Respondents described one research team member as 
taking the lead on the development or dissemination of the project but 
that this rotated between or among stable members of the team. Still, 
some time alone was reported as necessary on collaborative team 
projects. One respondent described this in the following manner: 


There is probably a balance with what I like to do 
by myself versus what I like to do with staff. I 
really need time that I have on the project when no 
one else is working with me. I have to have time 
alone throughout the project. 

Another respondent described the need to bring the "core idea" to the 

group and stated, "I like to think about the idea alone but I like to 

develop the idea with a group." For those respondents who work on team 

projects but really prefer the "solitary mode," delegation was 

described as an important skill with the need to train staff members so 

"... that standards of accuracy and following through. . . are really 

going to be met." Part of delegation skills was also the realization 

that "... you can't do everything yourself." 

Methods for continued development ' " 

Methods or activities for further development of research 

expertise were described by 19 of the respondents. The theme of their 

methods was self-selected study based on perceived personal needs 

related to a current project or interests in a particular area. 

Specific activities described are illustrated in Table 26. Reading 

literature or reviewing specific references of interest was the major 

activity described by the respondents. Taking courses for credit, 

auditing courses, or attending seminars on specific topics were also 

described as useful to address identified learning needs of the 

respondents. One respondent described the need for short courses 

developed for doctorally prepared nurses since the majority of 

continuing education programs are directed at a clinician audience and 

do not meet the needs of advanced researchers. 


Table 26 

Activities Used by Established Nurse Researchers for Continuing 
Development of Research Expertise 


Reading 14 73.68 

Formal or Informal Coursework 11 57.89 

Attending Conferences, Meetings, or Workshops 10 52.63 

Consultation _ ... 

Seeking consultation ' . 9 ' 47.37 

Providing consultation " .- , 10 ^^■ 52.63 

"Keeping in touch" with colleagues in area 

(networking) 3 .15.79 

- "".^ ■ " ' - 
Ongoing nature of the research , 

(continuing research work) ,. 3 - 15.79 

Writing for publication .^ 1 5.26 

Percentages are based on the number of respondents who were asked to 
describe methods used to further develop research expertise, N=19. 


Includes courses taken for credit, courses audited, short courses, 

and seminars. 

. Learning opportunities were also described by respondents when 
seeking and/or providing consultation on research. Seeking 
consultation from experts in a specific area provided for continued 
development of expertise based on needs with a current project or in 
specific area identified. Providing consultation also served as a 
vehicle for further development with review of research proposals. 


service on dissertation committees, and work with graduate students or 
faculty peers. One respondent described this opportunity for 
development through consultation as "taking on challenges." 
Consultation activities provided respondents with the intellectual 
stimulation from other people's ideas and research designs along with 
learning about different methodologies. ■■''•' 

Other opportunities for development of expertise occurred through 
attending professional meetings and conferences, "keeping in touch" 
with colleagues in the area, and continuing research activity 
throughout the year necessitating learning as specific needs arise. In 
addition, writing for publication was described as providing additional 
learning needs and opportunities during manuscript preparation. 

>' ' Environmental Characteristics 

Organizational influences are apparent in respondents' 
descriptions related to individual characteristics in the previous 
section as individuals operate in a context, whether it is family, •■ 
academia, the profession, or society. Organizational variables of 
interest specified on study instruments included geographic location, 
institutional type and sponsorship, organization of the nursing 
division, program offerings, age and size, institutional mission{s), 
support for research, research requirements, and characteristics of 

Data on environmental characteristics facilitative for research at 
sites recognized for productivity of nurse academicians were obtained 
using two study instruments. The Organizational Environment Form was 
designed to complement information provided by the Established Nurse 



Researcher respondents with data provided by a representative from 
administration of the School of Nursing unit. 

General characteristics of the study sites are illustrated in 
Table 27. Although all geographical regions were represented, the 
majority of institutions were located in the west. Sponsorship for six 
of the seven institutions was through state support with the 
institutions classified as research universities or specialized health 
center units under the Carnegie Classification (1976) . Approximately 
86 percent of the academic nursing units were organized as schools of 
nursing in the university. Degree offerings at the study sites are 
displayed in Table 28 with general administrative characteristics of 
the academic nursing units illustrated in Table 29. 
Institutional Missions 

The primary mission of the sites was of interest as an 
organizational variable for the context of the respondents. This 
variable was aimed at perceptions of scholarly and research orientation 
in the institutional environments. 
Primary mission 

On the Pre-Interview Profile respondents indicated their 
perceptions of the primary mission at their respective institutions. 
Research was ranked first by 90 percent of the respondents with 65 
percent indicating research as the primary mission, 20 percent stating 
that research and teaching were both the primary mission, and 5 percent 
reported the combination of research, teaching and service as the 
primary mission. Only 10 percent of the respondents indicated that 
teaching was the primary mission at their respective institutions. 

































Table 27 

General Organizational Characteristics of the Study Sites 

Geographic region 

North Atlantic 
Western - 


Public '- 

Private ^ , 

Carnegie (1976) Classification 
Research University I 
Research University II , ' 
Specialized Unit y 

Academic Nursing Unit Organization 
School of Nursing 
College of Nursing 

When representatives from the dean's office at six study sites 
reported on the primary mission as stated at their institution, 
responses were similar to those by the Established Nurse Researcher 
respondents. Research was again supported as the primary mission alone 
in first place (50%) , as the primary mission but equally with teaching 
(16.67), or in combination with teaching and service (16.67%). Only at 
one institution (16.67%) was teaching reported to be the primary 


Table 28 

Graduate Nursing Degree Offerings at Study Sites 

Degrogg % 


Master's degrees in Nursing 

Master of Nursing (M.N.) 
■i Master of Science (M.S.) 

Master of Science in Nursing (M.S.N.) 
Both M.N. and M.S. 

Doctoral degrees in Nursing 

„, Doctor of Nursing Science (D.N.Sc.) 
t'"' Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) 
-■':'.'. Both D.N.Sc. and Ph.D. * , ' 





3r ■' 













Table 29 

Characteristics of Academic Nursing Units 






Program ages, in years 






Master's^ : •^?- 










Program sizes 

Faculty head cougf 





Students, F.T.E. 






- Graduate 









" "■ 

Descriptive statistics based on six study sites with doctoral 
programs in operation. 


Respondents were requested to report full time equivalent enrollment 


Ranking of tripartite missions 

During the On-site Interview respondents further discussed 
institutional missions of research, teaching, and service. Respondents 
ranked each mission for emphasis at the institutional level and for 
individual preference. Results of these rankings are displayed in Table 
30. , 

In the ranking of perceived institutional preference, research was 
ranked first (80.95%T or tied with teaching in first place (4.76%) by 
85.71 percent of the respondents. Further, each of the three respondents 
from 5 of the 7 sites ranked the institutional missions in the seune order 
for their respective institutions. Respondents described this preference 
at the institutional or the school level related to the reward structure 
of promotion, retention, and tenure. Although a preference for research 
at the institutional level was evident at all sites, respondents 
described differences in the size of the intervals between the three 
missions with research sometimes well above the other two missions or 
with service as a very low third in the ranking. 

Respondents were then asked to rank their individual preferences for 
the three missions of research, teaching, and service. Again, research 
was ranked first (57.14%) or tied for first place (33.33%) by a majority 
(90.48%) of the respondents. Respondents supported their preferences for 
research and described how this was operationalized in teaching, service, 
and scholarly productivity. Several respondents described their 
functions within the three missions with teaching and service integrated 
in their research, therefore, preferences were not mutually exclusive. 


Table 30 

Rankings of Institutional Missions as Perceived by Established 
Nurse Researchers 

Institutional Individual 
Preference Preference 

Ranking* _n % n * 

Research =1 

Teaching =2 16 76.19 . -^^ 57.14 

Service =3 

Teaching =1 

Research =2 > ' 3 14.29 1 4.76 

Service =3 

Teaching = Research = 1 . 

Service =3 1 4.76 4 19.05 

Research = 1 ". ' '' 

Service = 2 \^ •. ' ' ■ L 4.76 0.00 

Teaching =3 * 

Research = Teaching = Service =1 0.00 3 14.29 

Service =1 ; - 

Teaching = 2 : - 0.00 ', ; 1 4.76 

Research = 3 ' 

Rankings in order of perceived preferences for the tripartite missions 

of the American university 

Respondents believed it was important that institutional and 
individual preferences be congruent. This need for congruence was 
described in relation to retention and satisfaction in the system, 
especially in terms of the reward or reinforcement structure in place. 
Several respondents described this need for congruence in terms of a 
shared value system between the institution and the individual. 


"Problems" and "frustration" were described as the result when values 
were discrepant. Alternate places of employment, like state colleges 
with a teaching focus, were suggested when a better "fit" or "match" 
was possible for the individual with a preference other than research. 
Support for Research 

Contextual support for research and scholarly productivity was of 
interest for the environments of the nursing discipline and academia. 
The general theme which emerged from the respondents' comments on 
environmental support was the "valuing" of research in nursing. This 
value was described as necessary for research and scholarly 
productivity with emphasis placed on the need for practice-relevant 
nursing research and recognition of the researcher role in specific 
institutions, organizations and for the nursing profession in general. 
The nursing profession * ■ , -• \ V ' , 

Two domains emerged from the respondents ' comments on support for 

research from the nursing profession, opportunities through 

professional organizations and validation of efforts. One respondent's 

comments illustrated these domains of environmental support perceived 

from the profession: . ^ 

. . . The kinds of things that. . . sustain you are 
(1) the validation that somebody else out there is 
convinced you're not crazy and that you may in fact 
have a worthwhile idea and (2) the access to tangible 
support and informational support when you need it. 

Professional organizations . These organizations provide support 

for research through conferences, meetings, and awards with an 

increasing emphasis on practice-relevant research. Respondents 


described the support as psychosocial and substantive as provided 
through intellectual stimulation, the opportunity for thoughtful 
critique, and the sharing of ideas and information with a community of 
scholars. Professional nursing organizations and specialty nursing 
groups were described as vehicles for this support. In addition, 
organizations particularly promoting research were identified by the 
respondents and included the Council of Nurse Researchers, Sigma Theta 
Tau, and the Center for Nursing Research at the National Institutes of 

Validation of efforts . Support through validation of one's work 
was described as reinforcement for research efforts and occurred 
through peer review, funding and the provision of resources, and with 
the extension of theoretical work by others. Dissemination 
opportunities also provided for this validation of efforts in research 
through the increased number of nursing research journals and 
research-focused conferences. This sense of validation of one's 
research efforts was perceived as particularly supportive when it 
resulted through thoughtful peer review or by peers in their area of 
research interest. 

The academic environment provided support for research, mainly 
through the expectations for research and the pursuit of knowledge as 
part of the academician's role. This expectation was further supported 
by the resources available in the setting. Three domains were apparent 
for support in academia, expectations, facilitation through funding and 
resources, and the collegial atmosphere. 


Expectations . In the academic environment reward structures 
related to promotion, retention, and tenure and the status given to 
research by colleagues, students and society provided expectations for 
research. Respondents reported that unique to academia is the 
reflective time and the freedom to pursue research which is not readily 
available in nursing service settings. One respondent described this 
reflective time as "the merit of academia [in that] you can control 
your time far more so than in practice." Service agencies, unlike 
academia, were described as imposing limitations on research through 
economic demands for cost effectiveness and a focus on immediate 
applicability of the findings. 

Facilitation through funding and resources . Monetary and tangible 
resources in the academic environment were described by respondents as 
a second domain of support for research. Respondents described the 
availability of funds for research in the academic setting. Intramural 
funds were described as facilitating research but were also precursors 
to extramural funding. Financial facilitation from the school or 
university was used for pilot studies prior to the grant application 
process or for projects with limitations in scope. Respondents 
described the novice researcher as needing to seek and use intramural 
funds in the development of a research program and a "track record" to 
demonstrate ability in order to obtain extramural funding. At three of 
the seven sites, respondents reported the availability of intramural 
grants or special research positions for summer semester faculty 
salaries. Faculty in these three settings were on nine month contracts 


and could apply for this funding as a supplemental salary while 
conducting research or doing consultation work for the school. In 
another setting where the faculty was on 12 month appointments, the 
summer semester had little or light teaching responsibilities and was 
an opportunity for faculty to devote additional time to research 

Tangible resources included staff and support services, research 
support units in the "school of nursing, and additional environmental 
resources. As one respondent described the need for such resources in 
academia, it was reported that "the difference between the university 
where [resources] are available and [the university] where they are not 
. . . show up in the data." Resources for research will be discussed 
later in this section. 

Collegial atmosphere . The third domain of support for research in 
academia identified in the respondents' comments concerned the 
collegial atmosphere. Academic colleagues provided intellectual 
stimulation, learning experiences, and opportunities for collaboration 
and consultation. This was described by one respondent as "an openness 
to exchanging ideas and sharing information." Another respondent 
stated that "most important [in academia] is the cohort of other people 
that are doing [research]." 
Resources for research 

Respondents were asked to list support services and other 
resources necessary or desirable for research activities. Major 
resources reported were secretarial services, administrative support, 


computer services, financial support, subjects, collegial support, 
libraries, assistance with data collection, physical space, time, and 
illustrative media services as illustrated in Table 31. Additional 
essential and desirable resources listed by a few of the respondents 
included human subjects committees, travel funds, reward structures, 
good ideas, and electronic mail systems. Resources listed were related 
to the respondents' preferences for particular research types and 
methodologies, for example, research assistants versus physical 
measurement equipment for data collection and mainframe computers 
versus personal computers for data analysis. The scope of the research 
was described related to other resources needed like extramural 
funding, office space for research assistants and team members, and 
secretarial services. Several respondents described how the research 
may start as a pilot or small study with intramural funds but 
extramural funding becomes necessary with larger samples, extensive 
designs, and extension studies. These differences in degree of 
resources were particularly apparent with secretarial services, 
funding, and physical space. Resources described as most useful by the 
respondents were those perceived as essential. 
Environmental Characteristics for Research at Study Sites 

Respondents were asked to describe their respective academic 
environments during the interview. Environments were positively 
portrayed in the respondents ' descriptions with a theme of 
environmental facilitation and the domains of scholarly expectations, 
administrative support, tangible resources, and collegial support. 

• --'--^ rr-sr^^j^^ ~ 


Table 31 

Established Nurse Researchers' Perceptions of Necessary and Desirable 
Resources for Research Activities 

































Secretarial Services 
Administrative Support 

Computer Services 

Financial Support or Funding 

Access to Research Subjects 

Collegial Support 

Consultation & collaboration 

Libraries 8 38.10 0.00 

Assistance with Data Collection 
Research/teaching assistants 

Physical Plant ^ 

Offices and laboratories 

Time Allocations for Research 

Illustrative Media Services 

Some respondents reporting resources for research in both necessary 

and desirable categories but differentiated by depth or amount of 


























Scholarly expectations 

Expectations for research and scholarly productivity were present 

in the environment and were described related to the perceived mission, 

"thrust," or "climate" for research in that context. Several 

respondents described an earlier emphasis on teaching prevalent six to 

10 years earlier in the setting but which had been replaced with 

expectations and rewards for research. Neophyte faculty members were 

described as currently being socialized into the researcher role. 

Contributions to the knowledge base of nursing and the transmission of 

this new knowledge were expected graduate faculty behaviors, especially 

with research-based programs and student expectations for faculty 

involvement in research. These expectations for scholarly productivity 

were described as currently in place in the environments and were 

supported with resources for attainment of the goal of productivity. 

One respondent described this process: 

. . . there's clearly the expectation and the excite- 
ment that you will be doing research . . . And that is 
supported . . . They give you the instruments, the peers 
and the other kinds of resources so that you can do it. 

On the Organizational Environment Form administrative respondents 

from six sites reported research expectancies for faculty which were in 

agreement with descriptions from the Established Nurse Researcher 

respondents. Research was required for promotion and tenure at all 

sites with some sites also requiring research for faculty appointment 

(83.33%) and retention (66.66%). 


Administrative support 

Administrative support for research was described by respondents 
as facilitation and reinforcement for scholarly productivity. School 
administrators provided this facilitation through provision of 
resources for pilot work, information on funding sources, and 
individual encouragement. Administrators were also described as 
providing reinforcement for research efforts through monetary and 
non-monetary rewards. Monetary rewards occurred with promotion, merit 
pay increases, provision of travel funds for presentation of the 
findings, and use of discretionary funds to assist with pilot studies. 
Non-monetary rewards were provided in encouraging and congratulatory 
comments in faculty meetings and on an individual basis. Several 
respondents described how their administrators made special efforts to 
congratulate them personally on accomplishments, whether for 
publications, awards, or research grants. 

Workload allocations . Administrative support for incorporating 
research into faculty workloads was an area particularly facilitative 
to productivity. This was described as providing opportunities for 
teaching in research-related areas, consideration of credit loads, and 
adjustment of responsibilities, especially committee work, or providing 
resources at times when the researcher was heavily involved in a 

In Batey's (1978) study on the structure and process of productive 
research environments at university schools of nursing, elimination of 
use of the term "release time" was recommended. Respondents were asked 

r -^oi^P - 



hc3w they felt about this recommendation. It was generally reported 
that release time was not available at their respective institutions. 
Respondents proposed that workload allocations for research involvement 
were more effective than release time, especially in settings 
facilitative to research. Release time, given for a certain period of 
time, was generally viewed as providing a dichotomy for research and 
teaching. As one respondent described, "[release time] implies that 
you're released fromyour other duties so that you can do research with 
the implication that research isn't part of your job." Respondents 
stated that it was more valuable to have "more continual time" but that 
release time may be needed in institutions where research is not the 
primary mission and where the facilities and workload allocations for 
research are not available. In the respondents' academic environments, 
administrative support and resources were present with workload 
allocations for research and the "freedom" to manage one's time and 
pursue research and scholarly endeavors. 
Tangible resources 

Environments were generally described by the Established Nurse 
Researcher respondents during the On-Site Interview as facilitatory 
with the resources available or the means to obtain these resources 
present in the environments. These resources included support staff 
and services, assistance with grantsmanship, consultation, physical 
space, continuing educational opportunities or travel money, equipment, 
and intramural funding. Environments were characterized from "rich" to 
"spartan" but the researchers could obtain resources at the school or 
university level, especially for small or pilot projects. Centralized 



school of nursing research support units were available and useful with 
these projects and with the preparation of grant applications. 

Tangible resources for research were reported on the 
Organizational Environment Form for six of the study sites. Financial 
resources available at the sites are illustrated in Table 32. 
Financial support through intramural and extramural sponsored research 
for School of Nursing faculty was reported as aggregate whole dollar 
amounts for the 1985 - 1986 Fiscal Year. Intramural monies awarded at 
four sites ranged from $10,575 to in excess of $1.5 million for the 
year with a median award of $43,053 for the study sites. Extramural 
awards reported at five of the sites ranged from $218,583 to $1.2 
million for the year with a median award of $269,658. In addition, one 
school representative reported sponsored research as percentages with 
30 percent from intramural funds and 70 percent from extramural funding 
sources. Four of the six sites reporting received Biomedical Research 
Support Grant funds in the past 5 year period. Aggregate amounts of 
Biomedical Research Support Grants were reported to the nearest whole 
dollar amount with the number of years of support specified. When 
amounts reported were divided by the number of years the support was 
received, the mean award for the six sites was $8,048 (n=6, s=13,806) 
with a median of $3,866.20 and a range from no support to close to 
$40,000 per year. 

Support staff and resources provided through administration for 
faculty research activities at the study sites are illustrated in Table 
33. In addition, Research Support Units were available to assist 

Table 32 

Financial Resources for Research at Study Sites 




Intramural awards 

$10,000 - 30,000 2 

$30,001 - 60,000 

$60,001 - 90,000 1 

Greater than $1 million 1 



(4) $402,710.00 741,325.00 $43,053.00 

Extramural awards 





$200,000 - 300,000 
$600,000 - 700,000 
Greater than $1 million 





Biomedical Reseajfh "" ■ 
Support Grants 


$ 8047.78 


$ 3,866.20 

No support grants 2 
$3,000 - 6,000 3 

Greater than $35,000 1 

Aggregate amounts of sponsored research dollars received by faculty 
for Fiscal Year 1985-1986, reported to the nearest dollar. 

Biomedical Research Support Grant Funds divided by the period of 
years received for comparison purposes. 


faculty with research projects at six (85.71%) of the sites. These 
specialized research support units within the schools of nursing have 
been available in the environment from one to 16 years with a mean and 
median age for the units of 8 years (n=5) . All six support units have 
staff and faculty available to assist school of nursing faculty members 
with development and follow through on research projects. 
Collegial support 

Scholarly peers were an important part of the environment in 
providing an intellectual atmosphere. Collegial support was both 
psychosocial and substantive in nature. Psychosocial support was often 
provided by a particular group of colleagues, not necessarily those 
peers with the same research interests. Substantive support came from 
colleagues who usually had similar or related research interests and 
was provided through discussion, consultation, collaboration, and 
especially critique of manuscripts and grant proposals. Off -campus 
nursing colleagues provided both psychosocial and substantive support 
but these peers usually had a research focus similar to that of the 

Non-nursing campus colleagues were described by respondents as 
interested and allowing opportunities for discussion. Utilization of 
opportunities with these ceimpus colleagues was dependent on the nature 
of the research and the physical arrangement of the campus with some 
colleagues being more accessible than others. Respondents viewed 
nursing as commanding the same respect as other academic disciplines, 
especially other practice disciplines and the behavioral sciences. 


Table 33 

Resources Available for Faculty Research at Study Sites (N=6) 

Computer Resources 

Microcomputers for research 
Mainframe computer, faculty accounts 

Consultation Services 
Statistical analysis 

Financial Support for Research 

Library facilities and support services 

Physical Space, Office Space 

Sabbaticals y, 

Secretarial Services 

Research Assistants 

Continuing Education Programs/Workshops 

Supplies for Research Activities 

Research Coordinator for Faculty 

Resources available for faculty use with research activities 

as reported by a representative of the administrative unit of 

the school of nursing from six of the study sites. 



















5 . 









' 1^ -^V-^^^V^ 


Examples of Successful Research 
The PSR was utilized to collect data for all three research 
questions relative to research orientation, organizational, network, 
and productivity variables as illustrated in Table 7. Eighteen of the 
20 studies reported had been awarded funding ranging from $500 to $1 
million. Characteristics of the funded projects are illustrated in 
Table 34. Dissemination of the results of these studies was performed 
through publication (90%) and presentation of papers at professional 
meetings (95%). Specific dissemination characteristics of the example 
projects reported are indicated in Table 35. 

The predominant methodology reported by the Established Nurse 
Researcher respondents was quantitative in 11 cases (55%), qualitative 
in two cases (10%), and a combined quantitative and qualitative 
approach in seven cases (35%). To assess if the predominant research 
methodology used with the successful project reported influenced how 
the respondents completed the PSR instrument Wilcoxin and median tests 
were done. There was no significant difference in the respondents 
responses to the 30-item scale of the PSR when qualitative versus 
quantitative methodologies were compared. In addition, no significant 
differences were apparent when qualitative and both qualitative and 
quantitative were combined and compared with those respondents 
reporting the predominant method used as quantitative. 
Research Orientation with the Successful Project 

Research habits were considered through Established Nurse 
Researcher respondents' descriptions on Part I of the PSR related to 


Table 34 

Funding Awards for Selected Successful Research Projects 

Awards Number of Studies* 

Award Amounts, in dollars 

500 - 4,999 
5,000 - 9,999 
10,000 - 14,999 
15,000 - 19,999 
20,000 - 29,999 
30,000 - 39,999 
Greater than 40,000 
Amount not reported 

Award Sources ^ 

Intramural Grants 

School of Nursing or University 

Extramural Grants . , 

Federal ^^^^ 

Division of Nursing 
National Institutes of Health 
Title V Grant 

Sigma Theta Tau 

















Grant Role 

Principal Investigator 
Co-Principal Investigator 



Percentages based on 18 of 20 studies where funding was awarded 

One project had funding from two sources 


Table 35 

Dissemination of Results for Examples of Successful Research Studies 

Number of Studies % 


Book or Book Chapter 
Refereed Journal 
Non-Refereed Journal 
Other Publication Media 

Best Reference for Findings 

Nursing Theory/Research Journal 

Specialty Journal, Nursing 


Refereed Journal, not Nursing 

State Report 

Refereed Journal article, in press 

No response 











Presentation at Professional Meetings 




Publication of example studies occurred in 18 of 20 cases. Multiple 
specific sources represent dissemination of the findings. 
Percentages are based on the number of examples reported, n = 20. 

Dual publication information has been reported on one example 
where results were published in two sources to address different 
dissemination purpose and audience. Percentages based on the 
number of examples reported, n = 20. 

"*y-«*-* *" '»Jit.>' - ■ 1 '^ 


the background and origination of the successful project. Following 
this, respondents described the projects' contributions to nursing 
knowledge . 
Research habits 

Purpose . Respondents were asked to state the purpose of the 
research example. The purpose was patient/client focused in 10 cases 
(50%) centering on patient/client behaviors, perceptions, and 
interventions. A nursing practice focus on clinical behaviors of 
nurses was evident in 4 cases (20%). The nursing profession in a broad 
range of environments was the focus in two cases (10%) . Four 
additional studies were considered basic research (20%) . 

Development of the idea . Origination of the idea for the research 
project was described by respondents as following previous work in the 
area, whether in clinical practice or on the program of research. 
Several respondents described the use of analytic skills for reflection 
on a problem area after reviewing journal articles or attending 
conferences. Further development of ideas and research questions for 
the successful research projects followed reviews of the literature and 
discussion with colleagues or occurred during research on another 
project. One respondent described the development of research 
questions based on "reading, thought, and identification of 
conceptually sound variaJales which could be measured." 

Attraction to the study . Established Nurse Researcher respondents 
were asked to describe what attracted them to the example study. 
Following analysis, three major themes were apparent: pioneering. 


opportunity, and testing. The pioneer theme was apparent in 
descriptions of "investigations of an untapped source of information." 
One researcher described the example used as a "pioneering effort." 
Descriptions to further theory development and resultant changes in 
practice as the attraction were also categorized under this pioneer 
theme. Another major theme for attraction to the example was 
opportunity. Respondents consistently used the term, "opportunity," 
and conveyed an impression of personal interest in the problem with 
collaboration, design, or research extension opportunities in place. 
Testing, as a third major theme, was apparent in descriptions of the 
attraction to the project. Testing was used to study common nursing 
interventions, to redesign a flawed study, in evaluating a model, or in 
situations where variables were quantifiable and available for study. 
Contributions to nursing < ; 

Part of the criteria for selection of successful research studies 
by the respondents was based on perceived contribution to nursing 
knowledge. To further describe the contribution, respondents were 
asked about acceptance and feedback from reviewers, the discipline, and 
from colleagues. Respondents reported acceptance and "positive" 
feedback from reviewers on the findings of the projects. Interest was 
reported from the field with opportunities for dissemination. 
Respondents further reported frequent citations of their work by 
others. Several respondents also reported numerous requests for 
reprints while another respondent stated, "nursing hasn't caught onto 
[requests for reprints] as [in] other fields." 


Respondents were asked to indicate what they perceived to be the 
major contribution of their example study. There were three domains 
which emerged from their comments which can be further placed into a 
typology: pragmatics, discovery, and theory. 

Pragmatics . The pragmatic domain was apparent through comments 
referring to nursing interventions, improvements in care, and relevance 
to practice. For example, one respondent reported that the research 
"contributed to nursing assessment" and helped identify those at risk 
for functional problems. Another respondent stated the contribution of 
"upgrading nursing care by sensitizing staff to [the] importance..." A 
third respondent reported the establishment of a means for a nursing 
activity in a specific population. 

Discovery . The discovery domain occurred at a higher conceptual 
level and focused on extension of knowledge or the data base when such 
information had not previously been available. Discovery occurred 
through identification and description of factors to provide for a 
better understanding of a problem area. This discovery domain provided 
the foundation for interventions, broader than the pragmatic domain 
with the latter addressing specific problematic areas. An example of a 
response in this domain was the report of "extending knowledge base" in 
a specific area "for patients, families, and care-givers." Another 
respondent indicated the contribution of "identification of an area of 
concern for many patients that is appropriate for nursing interventions 
via alteration in the environment or enhancement of patient coping." 
The provision of "a data base which is comprehensive for one setting" 


and a multidisciplinary perspective for the contribution are further 
examples reflective of this discovery domain. 

Theory . The theoretical domain, as the third level in the 
typology, involved establishing relationships, testing of models, and 
the "elucidation" of theory. In this theoretical domain, specific 
theories were tested and further developed or new or more valid 
relationships were developed. The general theme for all responses in 
this theoretical domain was contributing to the knowledge base of 
nursing with the provision of information not known or previously 
supported with empirical data. 
Organizational Contexts with Successful Research Projects 

The three domains for research facilitation in academia from the 
interviews (expectations for research, facilitation through funding and 
resources, and a collegial atmosphere) were supported with the 
respondents' descriptions of the successful research project. On the 
PSR, respondents were requested to identify environmental influences 
that facilitated or hindered the research, in particular, roles, the 
organizational context, and the reward system. 

Two domains emerged from the respondents' comments on facilitators 
and hindrances related to roles with the successful research project, 
faculty activities and colleagues. 

Faculty role . Faculty activities were referred to as both 
facilitative and hindering to the research. Facilitation occurred 
through administrative support with encouragement and workload 


allocations, teaching in the research area, resources like research 
assistants, and access to research subjects. At the same time, : 
respondents described hindrances related to the faculty role with 
specific activities creating "role strain," like committee work and 
meetings, teaching responsibilities, and "multiple competing 
responsibilities." One respondent reported, "many role expectations 

can slow you down." 

Colleagues . Collegial influences were mainly described as 
hindrances when colleagues were not similarly engaged in and committed 
to research. Another collegial hindrance in the environment was 
reported in the case of a faculty member who was overly competitive. 
With shared values for research with colleagues, facilitation occurred 
through collaboration and consultation for the division of labor and 
the provision of "complementary knowledge and experience." 
Organizational context 

Institutional and administrative support and encouragement for 
research along with resources for faculty in the environment were 
described by 70 percent of the respondents as facilitators for the 
successful research projects. Although 55 percent of the respondents 
reported no environmental hindrances, another 45 percent described 
inadequate time allocation for research (25%) or lack of specific 
environmental resources (20%) . Environmental facilitation was also 
reported with access to subjects and opportunities for dialog with 


Reward system 

The reward system for successful research projects was described 
as both intrinsic and extrinsic with reinforcement for research. 
Intrinsic rewards of personal achievement, "interpersonal rewards with 
[the] co-researcher," and making a contribution to nursing were 
described related to their nursing careers. Extrinsic rewards in the 
immediate university and school environments provided reinforcement for 
research activities through promotion, merit salary increases, 
intramural funding, and encouragement. Ninety-five percent of the 
respondents reported no hindrances from the reward system. The one 
hindrance identified was described as occasionally getting "mixed 
messages" in terms of what was rewarded in the university environment. 
Networking for Successful Research Projects 

Communication with colleagues was of interest as a network 
variable. Respondents were asked to describe linkages/networks used to 
interest others in using or extending the research findings. The major 
network opportunity utilized was presentation of findings at meetings 
or conferences. Other opportunities used by the respondents included 
consultation, dissemination through publication in journals and 
organizational newsletters, and public media. Network utilization 
reported by the respondents focused on getting the results to 
colleagues and seeking opportunities for dialog concerning the 
implications of the findings. Membership in clinical specialty and 
research subgroups of organizations were identified as useful by the 


Efforts toward dissemination of the findings 

The respondents reported dissemination mainly through publication 
and presentations at local, regional, national and international 
conferences and meetings. Other methods for dissemination of 
successful research included consultation, classroom teaching, radio 
and television media coverage, and the provision of testimony before 
legislative bodies. 
Efforts toward utilizing the findings 

Respondents reported utilization efforts mainly through providing 
the empirical data for further replication, validation, or extension. 
Providing this empirical data to others was done through consultation, 
publication, teaching students, and discussion of findings and their 
implications with colleagues and clinicians in practice settings. 
Several respondents described the actual use of the findings in their 
own clinical or educational practice. Methods of persuasion used to 
interest others in using or extending the findings occurred through the 
efforts for dissemination. Discussion with colleagues was the main 
method used for persuasion. One respondent reported, "my efforts tend 
to focus on interpreting my work to interested parties rather than 
making them 'buy' my idea." 

Utilization of the findings from successful research projects was 
demonstrated with replication and spinoff studies. Further research 
has resulted from the projects reported by the respondents as examples 
of successful research as illustrated in Table 36. Replications of the 
studies have been done by both respondents (35%) and by other 


researchers (70%). Spinoff studies based on the successful research 
project were also reported as dpne by both the respondents (68.42%) and 
other researchers (65%) . Only four of the studies (20%) used as 
examples of successful research have not resulted in replication or 
spinoff studies but one spinoff study was in the planning phase and 
another was being considered by the researcher. Another respondent 
reported that the example study used had already been a spinoff from an 
earlier study with the current example project for successful research 
in progress. The fourth respondent who reported no replication or 
spinoff studies from the example project stated that other studies had 
been done but that they were "less exhaustive." 
Productivity with Successful Research 

Perceptions of research success were assessed through responses on 
Part II of the PSR. Respondents rated the successful research study on 
a 30 item, five-point likert scale. Total mean score on the PSR was 
72.760 (n=20, s=12.275) with a median of 71.923. The reliability 
measure for the 30 scaled items yielded an alpha of .633. Three items 
on the PSR were treated as reversals. Descriptive statistics on 
individual items and the total instrument are displayed in Table 37. 
In the following section, responses to individual items will be 
described related to the respondents' perceptions of successful 
research along with application of the group responses based on the 
four themes proposed by Campbell et al. (1983). 


Table 36 
Further Studies 



Evolved from the Successful 

Research Project 





Mean Median 


% Mean* 







Number unknown 




1.00 0.00 





70 1.18 


Spinoff Studies 

19 68.42 1.61 2.00 

20 65 1.20 1.00 






5 or more 
Number unknown 




Calculation of means and standard deviations for studies done by other 
researchers based on the respondents who identified an amount for 
replications (n = 17) or spinoff studies (n = 16) resulting from the 
successful research project. 


Table 37 



for Items on the Part 

II of the PSR 




























.. . 2.1000 





1 2.5500 

























■' / 3.0500 















J"' 1.6842 





/'■- 3.7000 















5 5.0625 















*• 1.8000 





















































Questions scored as reversals. 


Table 38 

Correlation Matrix for PSR Items with Little Relationship to Examples 


of Successful Research 




























^Spearman correlations significant at p < .05. 
Spearman correlations significant at p < .01. 

Little relationship to the successful research projects 

Means and medians were compared for individual items on the PSR. 
The means and medians for six items were less than or equal to 1.50 
with the group indicating little relationship to the examples of 
successful research. These six items referred to replication studies 
or testing to negate prior relationships or competing theoretical 
models. Spearman correlations were done on the six items since they 
were ranked from zero (no extent) to 4 points (great extent) . As 
illustrated in Table 38, significant correlations (p<.05) were 
demonstrated between item 7 (testing of competing theories or models 


about a phenomenon) and three items to negate previously accepted 
relationships. Therefore, the successful research projects rarely were 
based on research to further test previously established relationships. 
Items identified as related to successful research 

Respondents reported a relationship to successful research 
projects on 10 items with means of greater than or equal to 2.45 and 
medians of 3.00 or greater, excluding reversals. These 10 items were 
concerned with the development of new knowledge through new variables 
or variable combinations, improvements in methodology, personal 
interest, significance of research findings, discovery of the subgroups 
of a particular construct, and clarification and applicability of a 
problem to nursing practice, education or administration. Although 
these 10 items referred to the development of new knowledge, no 
significant correlations were revealed between items. 
Themes for successful research 

Campbell et al. (1983) proposed four themes of significant 
organizational research, (1) methodological rigor, (2) importance to 
the discipline, (3) personal interest and motivation, and (4) real 
world implications. Respondents' perceptions of successful research 
were assessed related to these themes. 

Methodological rigor . Campbell et al. (1983) proposed a theme of 
methodological rigor for significant research through systematic 
argument, sound and complex methods, and use of variables that were 
quantifiable as opposed to expedience which characterized the 
"not-so-significant research" (pp. 105-106) . Five items on the PSR 


were concerned with the theme of methodological rigor for successful 
nursing research. Respondents rated the extent to which the example 
study tested previously established relationships and used new and 
quantifiable variables and/or improved methodology. Descriptive 
statistics for these five items are illustrated in Table 39. Three 
items yielded means beyond 2.40 and medians of 3.00. A theme of 
methodological rigor through improved methodology and use of 
quantifiable or new variable combinations continued to be present with 
successful research. Testing previously established relationships 
through replications was not a characteristic of methodological rigor 
and was reported less frequently with successful research (mean = 
1.3158, median = 1.0000). Adoption of a method developed in another 
field was also reported less frequently with these examples of 
successful research (mean = 1.50, median 2.00). ^ 

Importance to the discipline . Contributions to the knowledge base 
through research on relevant, controversial, or theoretical problems 
was the basis for the theme of importance to the discipline with 
significant research (Campbell et al., 1983). Fourteen items on the 
PSR were based on the theme of importance to the discipline as 
illustrated in Table 40. This theme of importance continued to be 
present with the examples of successful research, especially for 
investigating a controversial topic or discovering the component parts 
of a phenomenon. Of moderate concern with successful research were 
identification of new variables and relationships and the combination 
of ideas from two or more fields. 

Table 39 

PSR Items on Methodological Rigor 





















Table 40 

PSR Items on Importance to the Discipline 















20 ., 




20 , 

" ' 1.9500 












0.8000 ; 

0.9515 . 
































Infrequently successful research was reported to provide different 
explanations for accepted relationships or phenomenon. :>^,i 

As illustrated in Table 41, several significant correlations 
(p<.05) were apparent in this subset of questions for importance to the 
discipline. As discussed previously, the item on testing competing 
theories or models was positively correlated with items relating to 
discovery of different explanations or relationships for phenomenon. 
In addition, unification of phenomena was related to the discovery of 
different relationships. Resolving a controversial issue in nursing 
was negatively correlated with with the combination of ideas from 
different fields (r = -.5148, p=.0241, n=19) perhaps with the 
successful research studies focusing on the discipline itself. 

Personal interest and motivation . Campbell et al. (1983) reported 
that significant research was based on personal interest and motivation 
for the project rather than on a potential for publications or on 
research of topics acceptable to the discipline. A theme of personal 
interest and motivation was considered with six items on the PSR. 
Descriptive statistics on this subgroup are displayed in Table 42. 
Interest and motivation for the project were reported by respondents 
with successful research. Involvement in research based on the 
potential for publications was scored as a reversal with respondents 
demonstrating less applicability for this with successful research. 
Campbell et al. (1983) reported that expedience or convenience was a 
characteristic of "not-so-significant research." Unlike significant 
organizational research, convenience with successful research studies 



(N go 
in <n 
ro o 





O <N 

v£ <^ UO LQ 

. , . . n 

rH rH O 
(N CN iH 


n Q m 

r-l ^ VO 

UD Q rH i-H •<» 
O O O rH fN 


r- ■^ (Ti o 

1^ (N n rH 

8 8Sg 

^ 8 

rH I 


in ro 

ID r^ r~ 
(N n ro 

O vo I/) CO 
r4 in O (N 




a 00 § S S 

r~ [^ rH cN r- 

iD 'T 1" <N ro 

O <N 

Oi (Ti O Q 

ID C- r- ^ 

ID (N iH tH 

(N (N rH O 

in (N 
' If) 





fN CTt O ro "sr 
CM rH CN IQ r~ 

S S B ^ S 

en rH CN (J* 

r~ io Q? "* 

fN <N O (N 




CN (T> ^ '3' iD 

SOD og r- 01 »* ro >fi 
o rH ■^ in (N i-t O 


Tj- m Q 


n lo in 

rH CN O 




n in ro r^ r-- 

CTl fsl ID rH kO 

n iT) in H 

I I 

o oi in 


in (N ro 

ID r~ (N 

I~ rH lO 

(N <N (N 

5 in t-- go O 
ro "q" in f'l (N 



in f'^ (^ ID rn ^ N 







Scored as a reversal in the scale. 

Table 43 

PSR Items on Real World Implications 




PSR Items 

on Personal 

Interest and Motivation 



















































17 --' 














Scored as reversals in the scale. 


was reported by a moderate amount of respondents for successful 
research (mean = 2.35, median = 2.00). 

Commitment to dissemination was apparent in response to the item 
suggesting abandonment of dissemination, if the findings were of 
questionable value. Since respondents rarely reported publication 
potential as a consideration for involvement in successful research, 
dissemination of findings may need to be considered important to 
nursing for the report of negative as well as positive empirical 

Real world implications . Campbell et al. (1983) reported that 
significant research was characterized by useful research problems with 
implications for application in the real world in a wide variety of 
situations (pp. 105-106) . Table 43 contains descriptive data from five 
PSR items which addressed the theme of implications of the successful 
research project for nursing practice. A majority of the 20 
respondents (mean = 3.70, s=.5712, median = 4.00) indicated that 
findings from the successful projects were applicable to nursing 
practice, education, or administration. Respondents also reported that 
findings were significant, beyond that defined through the research 
design (mean = 3.0526, s=l,3529, median = 4.00). Three of the items in 
this group of questions related to issues of ethical concerns despite 
benefits and informed consent. Rarely was the successful research 
project characterized by ethical concerns, especially pain or 
discomfort to patients. The two items addressing ethical concerns 
revealed significant correlations (-.7145, p=.0019, n=16) . Several 


respondents noted on the instrument that there were no ethical concerns 
associated with the successful research project. 

Reactions of Respondents to Initial Findings 

A 49-page aggregate report of findings from the Pre-Interview 
Profile and the On-site Interview was mailed to the 21 established 
nurse researchers as a validity check to assess for adequate 
representation in the data. Twelve established nurse researchers 
(57.14%) from six academic environments completed the two-page short 
answer reaction form. All twelve respondents reported that their 
perceptions had been accurately presented in the data. No substantive 
changes in the report were recommended. Two of the respondents 
suggested summary statements on established nurse researchers and one 
respondent suggested the identification of a "single, most influencing 
factor on career, as perceived by respondents." Respondents declined 
the opportunity to provide further information or include a minority 
report. Several respondents commented on the similarities among 
established nurse researchers which could be used as a guide to 
stimulate others in research goals. 

Through this validity check on the analysis of the pre-interview 
and interview data, respondents supported the domains and themes 
presented in the data reported earlier in this chapter. Generally from 
the responses received in this final stage of data collection, 
established nurse researchers supported the analysis of the data 
provided by the group on their individual and environmental 


Findings from the study instruments have been presented in this 
chapter. Individual and environmental characteristics of the 
respondents and their academic contexts have been illustrated under 
personal, professional, positional, productivity, network, and research 
orientation variables. Domains and themes were drawn from the 
qualitative data and illustrated. Qualitative and quantitative 
findings from the PSR were used to illustrate characteristics of 
successful research examples described by the respondents. Established 
nurse researcher respondents ' reactions to an aggregate report of the 
data from the Pre-Interview Profile and the On-Site Interview were 
described and used as a validity check for the qualitative findings. 
In the following chapter, the findings for each of the research 
questions will be described in relation to the study model. 


The primary purpose of this research has been to determine 
individual and environmental characteristics of established nurse 
researchers related to research. In this chapter, the theoretical 
model will be discussed in terms of the study findings. Following 
this, findings for each research question will be presented to profile 
the individual and environmental characteristics of established nurse • 

A Model for Nurse Faculty Research Productivity 

Established nurse researchers are influenced by the four 
environments of college/school, university, discipline, and society 
which in turn affect successful research outcomes and lead to 
increments in knowledge for the discipline of nursing. In the 
following section, antecedent and outcome variables identified for the 
study findings are discussed in terms of their fit in the theoretical 
model (Figure 2). For further description of the model, refer to 
Chapter I. . 

Goals and Values Subsystem 

The goals and values subsystem influences research and scholarly 
productivity through positional, research orientation, and productivity 
variables. Positional variables of rank and tenure are placed 
primarily in this subsystem as part of the expectations in school 






U> V) 



cc o 

w o 2 

S "> H 

• O — UJ — ;J- 
^ <E O 


















C -H 

10 to 

+J ■r^ 

to S 
(6 M 

i>ri 0) 


Ol iH 































































and university environments for continuation in the system. Research 
and scholarly productivity are part of the means by which individuals 
attain this value or goal. Research orientation is apparent with 
influences from perceived importance and preferences for research and 
contributions to nursing. Goals and values from society, discipline, 
university, and school provide the foundation for shared values with 
individual researchers. Within this subsystem, two predominant themes 
that related to productivity were the importance of research to the 

discipline and research that addresses real world implications. 

Psychosocial Subsystem » 

.■,'"" -' ,f 
The psychosocial subsystem interrelates with the other four 

subsystems through people. Personal factors are one component of the 

researcher role including those background influences, antecedents 

and essential characteristics needed for research. Individuals 

enter the system with internalized values, motivation, attitudes, 

and preferences. External to the organizational environment, 

families provide individuals with psychosocial and tangible 

support for their involvement in research. Educational preparation 

and personal support external to the organization or discipline 

can occur through these personal variables and affect role 

performance in research. Role attributes needed by researchers 

reflect the themes of character traits, knowledge, and skills 

for generation, dissemination, and utilization of research. 

Utilization of research in the context of the psychosocial subsystem 

occurs mainly through replication and extension of the research. 


Positional variables also influence the research role in the 
psychosocial subsystem. Integration of role responsibilities was 
described by established nurse researchers related to teaching, 
research, and service or administrative activities. The negative 
aspect of positional variables influencing roles is competing role 
responsibilities which established nurse researchers have described as 
hindrances to successful research. One of the themes of successful 
research by established nurse researchers was their interest in and 
motivation for research which related to both research roles and the 
status assigned to research activities. 

Status gained through research is promoted through personal, 
professional, productivity, and research orientation variables. The 
individual researcher has been affected by interpersonal, educational, 
and environmental influences on career and scholarly development that 
have taken place prior to entry into the system. Integration of 
teaching and research roles are necessary for the demonstration of 
professional credibility of the faculty in their positions through the 
status assigned to them that is derived from nursing research 
activities. Through career age, the individual has adopted values for 
scholarly productivity and continues to operate within the role 
expectations and resultant status received through the reward system of 
the university. Further status is obtained through contributions of 
successful research outcomes to the discipline of nursing. 
Structural Subsystem 

Formalized channels of communication, interaction, and job 
responsibilities are provided through the structural integrity of the 


subsystem. Policy, availability of resources, and channels of command 
for obtaining resources for research must be considered with the 
structural subsystem. The structural subsystem influences research and 
scholarly productivity through organizational and research orientation 
variables. The organization of the school and characteristics of 
programs are one part of this structural subsystem that affect the 
resources available for successful research outcomes. The leading 
academic environments studied were characterized by large, established 
graduate programs in nursing. Faculty and student body sizes related 
to teaching and service functions are considerations with this 
structural unit. Intramural resources in the formalized structure of 
this subsystem occur through the expectation system, research support 
opportunities, and the collegial atmosphere. At times, the structural 
suJDsystem may be bypassed when the individual researcher views the use 
of more informal channels in the environment as more efficient or ■ 
useful for certain research activities. One hindrance to successful 
research which can occur relates to a potential situation where an 
excessive amount of administrative controls are in place. These were 
rarely described in the environments studied but occasionally were 
referred to as "hoops to jump through" or the excessive paperwork and 
channels to negotiate when attempting to access resources. 
Technical Subsystem 

Accumulated knowledge refers to the knowledge base of the 
researcher as well as the substantive support through consultation and 
collaboration necessary for accomplishment of successful research 


outcomes. Resources are provided from the environments, controlled 
through the structural subsystem, and coordinated by the managerial 
subsystem. Knowledge of these environmental resources and methods for 
obtaining access is needed by the researcher. Professional, 
positional, research orientation, and productivity variables are the 
components of this subsystem. Accumulated knowledge is demonstrated 
through advanced preparation, research, publication and work habits, 
and methods for continued development of individual scholars. 
Resources are identified and utilized by the researcher as appropriate 
to a particular scholarly endeavor. This subsystem focuses on the use 
of these resources rather than availability without application. 
Resources include not only the physical ones but also intangible 
resources with consultation and collaboration opportunities to further 
add to the accumulated knowledge of the individual researcher. 
Managerial Subsystem 

Administrative support and the provision of tangible resources for 
potential use and the reinforcement for successful research outcomes 
comprise this managerial subsystem. Managerial support is demonstrated 
through the expectation and reward structures of the environments, the 
funding opportunities, tangible resources provided, and workload 
allocations for research as part of the faculty role. Managerial 
support is also provided through Research Support Units located in the 
school environments. Managerial support from the school environment 
occurs with some research projects. In the case of larger, 
extramurally funded projects, the managerial focus may change to the 


university-wide office for sponsored research and/or the research team 
with resources, rewards, and coordination of activities external to 
school structure. Established nurse researchers also described the 
importance of motivation when managerial resources were insufficient. 
Given a motivated and committed researcher, research and scholarly 
productivity are made more difficult but are not totally inhibited with 
a dysfunctional managerial system for research activities. In the 
absence of managerial subsystem support, established nurse researchers 
focused on the psychosocial and technical subsystems for resources for 

research. , i .« . 

Support for research is seen through the "valuing" of nursing 
research. In academia, this research support can be seen in the 
domains of research expectations, facilitation through funding and 
resources, and in the provision of a collegial atmosphere. University 
and school environments provide inputs to the managerial subsystem in 
these domains. The discipline of nursing provides inputs with 
opportunities for stimulation, sharing, and critique through 
professional societies and organizations and with reinforcement by 
validation of efforts through peer review, funding and resources, 
extension of the research, and dissemination opportunities. 
Expectations or requirements influence the support needed for research 
and scholarly productivity. These inputs provide the basis for the 
resources, rewards, and integration of activities directed through this 



The school or college of nursing unit provides the resources for 
knowledge development. These resources include individual researchers 
along with facilitators for research activities. The five subsystems 
are contained within this school environment providing the resources 
for the goals and values of the system, psychosocial relationships and 
characteristics, structural integrity, technical foundations, and 
managerial support. 'This school environment provides for roles in 
research for faculty members, individually and collaboratively, within 
the school or nursing unit. Linkages among colleagues in the 
generation, dissemination, or utilization of research findings promote 
the transfer of knowledge to other practitioners and society to benefit 
ultimately the health care of consumers of nursing knowledge and 
services. '^_ '' ? 

In the university environment, role inputs through requirements 
for scholarly productivity in mission statements, facilitatory 
resources, and rewards in the promotion, tenure and merit systems 
communicate values and expectations to the school environment and the 
subsystems. Environmental facilitation for research has been reported 
in the domains of (1) scholarly expectations/requirements, (2) 
administrative support, (3) tangible resources, and (4) collegial 
support. These methods for facilitation of research activities allow 
for outputs to the other environments. Linkages are provided through 
intramural and extramural collaboration with further provision of 
resources like long distance phone services, travel money, and 
intramural grants. 


The next environment of the system is the nursing discipline. 
Goals and values for research generation, dissemination, and 
utilization are transmitted to the system environments, especially by 
nursing's scholarly subgroups. Utilization of research is promoted 
through dissemination of the research findings. The main variables in 
the disciplinary environment are communication with colleagues, 
mentorship, professional societies and organizations, and scholarly 
journals for continued development, dissemination, and demonstration of 
scholarly productivity in research-based refereed journals preferred by 
established nurse researchers. Linkages are provided in networking 
activities with colleagues through these variables. 

Patients and health care consumers are the focus of the societal 
context with generation and dissemination of knowledge from the 
subsystems and other environments aimed at the improvement of health -, 
care. Research problems for nursing are identified in this context 
based on the theme of real world implications for successful nursing 
research. This context provides the environment for the ultimate goal 
of utilization of research and improved care to consumers. 

Findings for Research Questions 
Research Question One 

The first research question concerned individual characteristics 

of established nurse researchers and was stated as follows: 

What precursors (antecedents) and individual characteristics 
do established nurse researchers identify as contributing to 
and influencing successful research outcomes and other 
scholarly endeavors? 


Three themes were apparent in the established nurse researchers' 
comments on antecedents and essential characteristics for research, 
character traits, knowledge and skills. 
Character traits theme 

Respondents described individual character traits as both 
antecedents for research and scholarship and as essential 
characteristics for ongoing research. This theme contained the 
following six domains of traits: interest, commitment and motivation, 
perseverance, creativity, independence, and ethics or a sense of honor. 

Character traits are those individual attributes which operate through 

. - ^ f' 

the psychosocial subsystem for successful research outcomes. 

Character trait domains . An interest in knowledge and ' ;; 
contribution to the knowledge base was the first character trait of the 
nurse researcher. As an antecedent there must be an interest in asking 
questions and finding answers to important problems. This interest 
included an apparent enjoyment with research. As an essential 
characteristic, interest became an enthusiasm for research to the point 
of internalizing research into daily activities. Research must be 
ongoing whether in the less visible reflective time or in the more 
apparent involvement in research activities. 

Interest was supported through a sense of commitment and 
motivation for the research. As an antecedent, this commitment and 
motivation were the ways in which the individual directs time and 
effort into research projects and activities. Commitment and 
motivation allow for establishing priorities directed to research and 


sustaining the interest in research despite the time and effort needed 
for the work. As an essential characteristic, commitment and 
motivation were directed toward the program of research for maintaining 
the ongoing interest in logically extending knowledge and contributing 
useful information for utilization by practitioners, consumers of ; 
health care, and other researchers. 

Commitment and motivation were sustained through perseverance as 
both an antecedent and an essential characteristic of the researcher. 
Perseverance was described as the endurance, persistence, patience, and 
tenacity, especially when problems arise. The individual must be able 
to persist with complex tasks and not become easily discouraged or 
defeated. This was described as an essential characteristic for the 
nurse researcher, especially related to the research project. The 
researcher must be able to anticipate problems during the research 
process and be able to deal with them. Perseverance was also described 
as a sense that, in the long run, the study will provide valuable 
information along with problems that arise during the research process. 

Creativity was the fourth domain of character traits. As an 
antecedent, creativity was needed to envision the research problem 
along with the broader context. As an essential characteristic, 
creativity provided direction to the research program for further 
extensions in order that contributions be made to nursing science. 
Part of creativity involved the use of analytic skills necessary for 
the generation of research. 


Independence was described as a fifth character trait. As an 
antecedent, independence was necessary for the generation of ideas, for 
decision making during the research process, and for accountability for 
the project and its outcomes. Independence, as an essential 
characteristic for the nurse researcher, required risk taking and 
courage. The dimension of peer review required this courage as the 
research and the researcher are opened to scrutiny of merit with either 
the grant application or dissemination of the results. 

Ethics, or a sense of honor for maintaining the scientific 
integrity and quality of the project, was described as a sixth 
character trait for the researcher. The basis for this sense of honor 
was described as an antecedent attribute needed by the nurse 
researcher. This sense of honor is retained as an essential 
characteristic in order to maintain the integrity of the data as well 
as the entire project for successful research outcomes and for ultimate 
utilization. .- ^ . . 

Attributes of established nurse researchers . Evidence of these 
character traits was considered with respondents' descriptions of 
career influences mainly through interpersonal and family experiences. 
Family, relatives, teachers, mentors, colleagues, and deans were 
reported to have provided influences on the early development of 
approximately 81 percent of the established nurse researchers. 

Respondents reported influences from their families of orientation 
and procreation. Creativity and discussion were encouraged in the 
family circle. Parents of one-third of the respondents stressed 


educational accomplishments. Approximately 52 percent of the 
respondents were firstborn children with another 14.29 percent 
reporting role reversals with the older sibling. The majority (61.90%) 
of the respondents were currently married with spouses described as 
supportive to their commitment and interest in research. Although only 
50 percent of the respondents indicated current dependents other than 
spouses, no negative influences on research careers were described 
related to children. Perhaps some of this can be attributed to 
descriptions of spousal assistance with home responsibilities (64.29%). 

Issues reported from education, practice, and society influenced 
the career development of one-third of the respondents. From career 
development to a focus on research, influences were mainly from 
interactions with colleagues, mentors, teachers, faculty, and deans as 
reported by approximately 58 percent of the established nurse 
researchers. Influences in the areas of educational and environmental 
factors related to the perceived strength of their educational 
preparation, opportunities for research, expectations in the 
environment, and the reward system were described by one-third of the 

Personality influences related to career development were reported 
by 38.10 percent of the respondents and included perceptions of early 
job satisfaction or career choices made and the desire for 
independence, control, and responsibility. Further influences on • ' 
development of their research careers related to early job 
satisfaction, the interest and desire to do research, and the need to 


demonstrate credibility following doctoral education were reported by r 
approximately 48 of the established nurse researchers. 

The respondents were well established in their academic careers. 
The mean career age for the group was 12.80 years. Career age was 
indicative of their work experience in academia with group means of 
2.05 career moves and 8.55 years at their current locations. In 
addition, 42.86 percent of the established nurse researcher respondents 
held a variety of administrative positions in the school of nursing. 
Commitment to career and research efforts and independence were evident 
in the work habits of respondents. The mean number of hours worked per 
week for the group was 59.65 with 19.50 hours spent in research 
activities, including writing for publications and grants and providing 
consultation on research. Established nurse researchers also spent a a 
mean of approximately 45 percent of their time working alone. 
Interest, commitment and motivation, perseverance, creativity, 
independence, and an ethical sense of honor were further demonstrated 
by respondents in their research preferences, authorship preferences, 
and devotion to their individual programs of research. Development and 
continuation of programs of research were described according to three 
themes, inner motivation, preferences, and productivity. The theme of 
inner motivation provided evidence of established nurse researchers' 
possession of the character traits with their descriptions of 
enjoyment, satisfaction, involvement, and concern for quality and 
making a contribution through their respective programs of research. 
Interest, educational background, and clinical practice background were 


described by respondents as having influenced their preferences for 
research in the areas of fundamental processes and practice. These 
interests and career influences provide further evidence of interest, 
commitment and motivation, perseverance, and creativity as attributes 
of established nurse researchers. 
Knowledge theme 

The second theme for antecedents and essential characteristics for 
the nurse researcher focused on knowledge in three domains, the 
researcher's knowledge base, opportunities for learning, and the 
ability to seek help when needed. Individual characteristics related 
to the knowledge theme operate through the technical subsystem for 
successful research outcomes. " '' ■ 

Domains of knowledge . The first domain concerned the knowledge 
base of the individual on both substantive and methodological issues, 
particularly related to research. Substantive and methodological 
knowledge for research as an antecedent was acquired predominantly 
during graduate education. Since respondents reported that doctoral 
education is focused on the beginning, not the accomplished researcher, 
a knowledge base through a strong doctoral program was the desired 
antecedent. As an essential characteristic for the nurse researcher, a 
preexistent knowledge base is needed along with current substantive 
knowledge for the program of research. 

Opportunities for continued learning served as both an antecedent 
and an essential characteristic for the researcher to supplement the 
researcher's knowledge base. As an antecedent, opportunities for 


continued learning focused on the appreciation for acquiring new 
information and skills to build on the knowledge base. As an essential 
characteristic for the researcher, opportunities for continued learning 
were directed at informational needs and problem solving related to 
involvement in current and planned research projects. 

Humility, or the ability to recognize when there was a need for 
seeking help or consultation, was the third domain of knowledge as 
antecedents and essential characteristics for the researcher. The 
antecedent sense of humility was directed at recognition of weaknesses 
and seeking resources to augment the knowledge base. As an essential 
characteristic, there was a need for the knowledge or awareness of when 
seeking consultation and collaboration on the research project was 
appropriate. Actively seeking peer review for merit of research 
activities or findings was a component of this knowledge domain. 

Knowledge accumulation by established nurse researchers . 
Established nurse researcher respondents contributed a broad background 
to the group through their doctoral preparation in a variety of 
disciplines. One-third of the group had earned doctorates in nursing. 
Respondents generally reported their perceptions of a strong 
educational background. Postdoctoral work was accorded a positive 
value with the opportunity to broaden or practice skills, solidify 
research interests, be relieved of workload responsibilities, gain 
experience in research, and/or to work with a mentor. The value of 
postdoctoral education was further supported by the fact that 47.62 
percent of respondents had done either formalized postdoctoral programs 


(14.29%) or self selected studies (33.33%). In addition, 29 percent of 
the established nurse researchers reported the desire to do a formal 
postdoctoral program in the future. 

Respondents demonstrated substantive knowledge through their 
research programs and methods for continued development of research 
expertise. A variety of specialty areas was represented in the 
clinical practice backgrounds of the respondents, with these 
specialties often reflected in their programs of research. Self- 
selected study was used by established nurse researchers for continued 
development of research expertise based on perceived personal needs 
related to a current research project or interests in a particular 
topic. The methods used for development included reading (73.68%), 
taking or auditing courses (57.89%), attending conferences, meetings or 
seminars (52.63%), seeking (47.37%) or providing (52.63%) consultation, 
networking with colleagues (15.79%), continuing ongoing research in the 
area (15.79%), and writing for publication (5.26%). 

Collegial linkages or networking activities provided the 
opportunities for consultation when help was needed on a topic or 
project. Respondents reported current and projected linkages with 
colleagues for consultation and collaboration on a certain area of 
interest. One example of this was reflected in established nurse 
researchers' descriptions of different methodologies which they wanted 
to implement on a specific project or to develop more skill in and the 
colleagues they planned to contact for consultation or direction. 



Skills theme 

The third theme of antecedents and essential characteristics for 
the nurse researcher contains the skills necessary for successful 
research outcomes. Applicable through the psychosocial and technical 
subsystems, the skills theme contains four domains, mental abilities, 
collegiality, articulation skills, and organizational skills. 

Domains of skills . Mental abilities were described as an 
antecedent for logical and analytical thought on a research problem. 
These mental abilities provided the researcher with the cognitive basis 
for working with abstractions and relationships. Mental abilities for 
working with theoretical and empirical relationships were essential for 
ongoing research. 

Interpersonal skills in collaborative relationships was the second 
domain of antecedent and essential skills for the nurse researcher. 
These antecedent interpersonal skills involved the ability to function 
effectively in collaborative relationships. As essential 
characteristics, interpersonal and leadership skills are needed for 
linkages through collaboration and consultation. 

Organizational skills were both antecedents and essential 
characteristics for the nurse researcher. As antecedents, organization 
skills focused on attention to detail and the discipline needed for the 
research process. Organizational skills specific to research habits 
became essential characteristics of the nurse researcher. These 
organizational skills provided for efficient and effective use of time 
and other resources for the success of research projects. 


Articulation skills were described as antecedents by some 
respondents but more so later as essential characteristics of the 
individual nurse researcher. Coiranunication skills in both speaking and 
writing are essential for the generation, dissemination, and 
utilization of research. In the generation phase, articulation skills 
are needed to obtain monetary, physical, and interpersonal resources 
for the project. Communication skills for presentations, publications, 
and informal discussions are requisites for dissemination of the 
findings to promote utilization. Therefore, articulation skills are 
essential to communication of the results as well as to convince others 
of the merit of the research. 

Skills of established nurse researchers . Respondents described 
early childhood and educational experiences as fostering the 
development of mental abilities. Inclusion in family discussions and 
encouragement of mental curiosity and reading were described by 
respondents. Later, early professional experiences in baccalaureate 
and master's degree programs offered specific opportunities for the 
respondents in development of skills and abilities. Respondents 
described work in special programs or projects or early experiences 
with mentors which were intellectually stimulating and which lead them 
to further education and a sustained interest in research. 

Use of mental abilities was apparent in established nurse 
researchers' descriptions of the origin and background of studies used 
as examples of successful research. Development of research ideas was 
described following review of the literature or reflection on the 


topic. Attraction to the project in the three themes of pioneering, 
opportunity, and testing also reflected the analytic skills applied to 
research for contributing knowledge to nursing science. 

Collaborative efforts on research ideas or projects were discussed 
by established nurse researchers. Interpersonal skills were described 
in the provision of leadership to the research team and in 
collaborative and network activities. A discussion of interpersonal 
linkages used by the respondents for successful research outcomes are 
addressed in the discussion for research question number three, later 
in this chapter. Collegiality was also reflected in the publication 
preferences of established nurse researchers. Co-authorship and 
multiple authorship emerged with involvement in larger, collaborative 
projects. These collaborative projects resulted in increased 
opportunities for publications through commitments to dissemination of 
the work. Although authorship for these projects was a collaborative 
effort, limiting the number of writers to one or a small group was 
recommended and required interpersonal skills with the group. 

The actual development of organizational skills was rarely 
described although some respondents described early family experiences 
in problem solving which potentially assisted in this area of skills 
development. Mentors were described by several respondents as 
assisting in research design during doctoral education. In initial 
academic positions, established nurse researchers may also have been 
influenced by the organizational skills of those colleagues they 
described as socializing them to the expectations for scholarly 


Evidence of organizational skills possessed by the established 
nurse researchers was provided through their descriptions of research 
habits. These research habits contained the theme of concentration and 
devotion to the research project (s). The domains of research habits 
included the following: (1) creating an environment for research 
productivity, (2) time management, (3) the ongoing nature of the work, 
(4) being methodical, (5) being involved in multiple projects, and (6) 
being involved in collaborative work. 

Organizational skills were apparent in the strategies used by 
established nurse researchers in creating an environment for 
productivity, in time management, and in being methodical and involved 
in multiple projects. Recognition and use of environments most 
suitable to individual research styles whether at home, in libraries, 
or other campus offices were described by the respondents. 
Concentration was needed to focus energy and mental abilities on the 
research during either the developmental or writing stages of the 
project. A sense of organization was provided through this control 
over the environment with the elimination of distractions, having 
preferred equipment, supplies and data available, and devotion of 
blocks of time to the activity. Creating time for research by adding 
to existing schedules, placing limits on selected professional 
activities, setting and respecting research priorities, and using time 
efficiently all reflected the organizational skills of the established 
nurse researchers. The most evident: organizational skills in their 
research habits were described by the respondents related to the need 


for being methodical, organized, and careful researchers, especially in 
the developmental and planning stages of the research projects. 
Involvement in the multiple projects preferred by established nurse 
researchers also requires organizational skills for attention to 
several projects in various stages of the research process. 

Articulation skills were characteristic of the established nurse 
researchers as demonstrated through their productivity in publications 
and paper presentations. Early publications provided one example of 
the antecedent skill. The mean number of early publications for the 
group was 6.50 with a median of 3.00. Ninety-five percent of 
respondents perceived that early experience in publishing work had a 
positive influence on the researcher in the areas of practice, 
"building on a theme," and "establishing credibility" in the 
discipline. The issue of practice concerned the development of 
articulation skills. Respondents' perceptions of the importance of 
practice was demonstrated in their mentorship activities where they 
provided opportunities for young scholars to present collaborative work 
or be involved in publishing, whether the papers had been developed to 
meet course requirements or developed following collaborative research 
projects. The antecedent seems to have been the opportunity for 
practice in this area rather than fully developed articulation skills. 
Another area where young scholars were described as assisted in the 
development of articulation skills was through the direction provided 
by the established nurse researcher respondents during the students' 
work on theses and dissertations. 


Further evidence of the skills domain was provided by established 
nurse researchers through current rank and tenure status and 
demonstration of productivity in programs of research. Eighty percent 
of the respondents were at the rank of associate professor or professor 
with 75 percent tenured at their respective institutions. This 
provided evidence of earlier productivity of the respondents to meet 
the criteria for rank and tenure. An ongoing commitment to 
dissemination of research results was apparent in the weighted measures 
of productivity. The group of established nurse researchers 
demonstrated articulation skills through publications, presentation of 
papers, and receipt of grants for their research projects. The mean 
weighted total productivity score for the group was 44.675 for the past 
three years and 94.6429 for total careers, demonstrating continued 
productivity and use of articulation skills in publications, 
presentations, and grant proposals. Writing skills through 
publications were significantly correlated with articulation skills 
used with paper presentations and grant proposals for both the past 
three years and total careers. In addition, 81.21 percent of the 
respondent have done off-site consultation with a mean of 3.76 
consultations during the past three years and 9.13 in total careers. 
Established nurse researchers were also appointed to editorial boards 
to assess the articulation skills of others. The mean numbers of 
editorial boards the respondents served on were 2.05 for the past three 
years and 2.00 for total careers. 


Research Question Two 

Environmental characteristics of and influences on the established 
nurse researchers was the focus of the second research question which 
was stated as follows: 

What environmental variables do established nurse researchers 
identify as being essential to the support and success of 
their research and the research process? 

Respondents discussed environmental characteristics supportive of 
research within a general theme of environmental facilitation. Four 
domains were present in this theme as essential to the support and 
success of research endeavors, expectations, administrative support, 
tangible resources, and collegial support. 
Expectations in the environment 

The first domain of environment facilitation concerned the 
presence of expectations. These expectations were supportive of the 
goals and values for the research. Shared values were present among 
researchers and work environments through institutional missions, 
requirements (expectations) for scholarly productivity, the operation 
of reward systems, and the value for research perceived in the 

Institutional missions. Research was a value at the institutional 
level and communicated to schools and faculty in the system. Five of 
the institutions visited were classified (Carnegie, 1976) as research 
institutions (71.43%) and two as specialized health center 
units (28.57%). Of the three missions of teaching, research and 
service, research had a primary focus as perceived by both established 


nurse researcher respondents (90%) and representatives from the 
administrative staff of the respective schools of nursing (83.34%). 
This value for research was further supported by established nurse 
researcher respondents who ranked research first for both perceived 
institutional preference (85.71%) and personal preference (90.48%). 
This common perception of research as a thrust at the university level 
was supportive of the goals and values for research. In addition, 
congruence for the value of research was apparent at both the 
environmental and individual levels. 

Expectations for scholarly productivity . The shared value for 
research was present in the environments of school, university, and 
discipline through actual expectations for demonstration of scholarly 
productivity. At the school level, requirements for research were 
present through the managerial subsystem. Representatives from school 
administration reported that research was required for appointment 
(83.33%), promotion and tenure (100%), and retention (66.66%). 

Established nurse researchers described expectations of their 
colleagues similar to those communicated at the institutional level for 
promotion and tenure with the additional collegial expectations for 
collaboration and consultation. In general, the university expected 
research and the pursuit of knowledge followed by dissemination through 
teaching and publication and, ideally, supported through extramural 
funding. These expectations at the university level were similar to 
the personal expectations of the established nurse researchers with 
some researchers expecting inclusion of further activities beyond those 

. ' ■• 

" •■••• 


of the university. Establj 





I that 

scholarly subgroups in the 


had shared values for research 

and scholarly productivity, 



could not be 


zed to all 

members of the profession. 


rs are socialized to 


expectations for productivity in the 




education, mentoring relationships, and early academic positions held. 
Communication of the shared values occurs through perceived and stated 
expectations for research and scholarly productivity. 

Reward systems . Expectations are further supported through the 
reward systems in place in the environments. Intrinsic and extrinsic 
reinforcement for successful research occurs in the environments of 
school, university, discipline, and society related to career 
development and/or actual awards. Intrinsic rewards accrue through 
personal feelings of accomplishment based on reinforcement in the 
environments, whether psychosocial or through seeing positive outcomes 
following utilization of the research. Extrinsic rewards are provided 
through promotion, tenure and retention in the system, merit pay 
increases, awards of funds for research or travel, or resources 
provided specific to the researcher's individual needs. These 
environmental rewards support expected involvement in scholarly 
endeavors and promote continuation of values of the system. 

Valuing of research in the profession . As stated, shared values 
for research, although not generally prevalent throughout the 
profession, were present and congruent in the discipline's scholarly 
subgroups. In the profession, there were two domains supportive of 


research: (1) opportunities through professional organizations and (2) 
validation of efforts. Professional societies and organizations 
provided opportunities for both psychosocial and substantive support in 
the activities of intellectual stimulation, sharing, and critique of 
work. Validation of efforts was a type of reward for the merit of the 
scholar's work. This validation was provided through peer review, 
funding and provision of resources, extension of the work, and 
increased opportunities for dissemination. 
Administrative support for research ' • 

One impetus for research was provided through administrative 
support promoting research as integral to the academician's position. 
Lack of support limited, rather than inhibited, involvement in 
scholarly endeavors. In several established nurse researchers' 
descriptions of prior situations where administrative support was 
limited, research was still done. It may be noted that either the 
researchers were no longer in those prior, non- supportive positions or 
the environment was described as currently more facilitative. 
Currently, administrative support was present in the environments 
through general characteristics, workload allocations, and psychosocial 
support . i 

General characteristics of immediate environments . Most 
established nurse researchers were involved in graduate education in 
environments which supported large, established graduate nursing 
programs. The mean number of faculty in the environments was 107.83 
{n=6 schools) with a mean full time equivalent total student enrollment 


of 561.40 (n=5 schools) and total graduate student enrollment of 260.80 
(n=5) . For the seven schools with master's programs the mean age was 
36.57 years. The mean age of the doctoral programs was 12.50 years 
when the six operational doctoral programs were considered but, if all 
seven schools are considered, the mean age would be 10.33 years. 
Established nurse researchers' reports of student faculty ratios 
yielded a mean of 9.29 students. Respondents from school 
administration reported ratios with variable bases of comparison but 
generally supported the reports of the established nurse researchers 

with no ratios greater than 1:10 or smaller than 1:4 faculty to 

>,-*''■'• ' •■ 
students. "'.■ 

«"'' ■ ».: ' . _ . 

Workload allocations . Administrative support through time for 
research activities was a resource needed for successful research 
outcomes. Release time for research activities was not present in the 
environments. Rather, established nurse researchers reported that 
research was supported through workload allocations using some 
combination of the following strategies: (1) consideration of a match 
between teaching and research content areas, (2) stable teaching 
assignments, (3) freedom to work on scholarly endeavors off-site since 
ultimate productivity was the issue rather than office time, (4) relief 
from some committee tasks or committee attendance during peak periods 
in the research process, and (5) limitations on the number of 
administrative committee meetings. Workload allocations were apparent 
in official job contract percentages for teaching, research and service 
functions with means of 26.33 percent for research and 46.25 percent 


for teaching functions for the group. Hindrances were described by 
respondents when competing role responsibilities were present. 
Generally through the administrative support in the environments, 
research was valued and supported with consistent and desired teaching 
assignments and encouragement of autonomy in research activities. 
Psychosocial support . Administrators provided psychosocial 
encouragement and support as well as the more tangible support in the 
reward systems in the' institution. Interpersonal contacts and special 
congratulatory efforts were reported by established nurse researchers 
for their accomplishments. Respondents described specific efforts made 
by their deans or immediate superiors which were encouraging to them in 
continuation of their programs of research or gratifying following 
specific scholarly accomplishments. ,)«■-. .»s.-*v 

' ' *■ ■ -* f ■ i 

Tangible resources in the environment •' .*■■ • " 

Tangible resources included those services or resources in the 
environments other than psychosocial forms of support. The 
organizations supported research through the provision of services and 
resources. In their descriptions of essential resources, respondents 
listed the following ones as necessary for their research: secretarial 
services, computer services, access to subjects, financial support, 
libraries, assistance with data collection, physical space for work and 
storage of data, and illustrative/media services. All schools provided 
the following resources for faculty research activities: computer 
services, consultation on design and analysis, financial support, 
library services, physical office space, and secretarial services. 


Sabbatical leaves for faculty use in research activities were also 
supported by these environments. In addition, the majority of schools 
also supported faculty research activities through the provision of 
research assistants (83.22%), continuing education programs or 
workshops (66.67%), and miscellaneous supplies for research (66.67%). 
Access to these resources was variable in the environments and much 
depended upon the researchers' motivation to seek the needed services 
or support. For example, for the committed researcher with a research 
idea in mind, applications for financial support or research assistants 
usually provided the requisite resources, yet some environments 
required research proposals, others one or two-page requests, and 
others personal contacts with the dean or the administrative 
representative for research activities. The main need for the 
researcher was knowledge of the system to gain access to resources in 
an efficient manner. 

Research support units . Another resource for nursing research at 
six of the schools (85.71%) was the availability of research support 
units. These support units have faculty and staff to assist in the 
development and follow- through on research projects. These units were 
described as especially supportive to the novice researcher in the 
development of a research idea. Tangible resources, especially 
consultation services, provision of research assistants, and 
secretarial services were provided through these specialized units. 
These units were especially supportive for the project which had not 
yet received funding or in the preparation of materials for a grant 


Sponsored research . Funding for research was a resource needed in 
accordance with the depth and scope of the project. Monetary support 
for the research varied. Small projects could be managed through 
school support services for postage, secretarial services, and 
microcomputers for data analysis. Intramural grants as "seed money" 
were available for pilot studies or studies on a small to moderate 
scale with additional computer and secretarial services, research 
assistants or equipment for data collection, and library support 
accessible in the school and university environments. Projects with 
complex methodologies, equipment requirements, and sampling frames 
required larger amounts of support, preferably through extramural 
funding, to provide for staff salaries and purchase of additional 
equipment and services. '• ... . 

School administrative representatives reported on the amount of 
sponsored research obtained by the nursing faculty as a whole for 
fiscal year 1985-1986. Broad ranges were apparent in the reports. 
Intramural grants at the school or university level yielded a median 
amount of $43,053.00 for the year with a range from $10,575 to $1.5 
million. Biomedical Research Support Grants in the environment were 
similarly variable with a median of $3,866.20 for one year and a range 
from no funding received to $40,000.00. Extramural funding received in 
that same year by the faculty as a whole yielded a median amount of 
$269,658.00 with a range from $218,583.00 to $1.2 million. 

Established nurse researchers were productive in their acquisition 
of intramural and extramural funding for research projects. To 
demonstrate minimal productivity of the group, 100 percent had been 


awarded at least one federal grant and 80 percent at least one 
intramural grant for their research projects. The mean numbers of 
extramural grants for the group was 2.05 and 3.82 for the past 3 years 
and total career respectively. Similarly, the mean numbers of 
intramural grants was 2.55 and 3.29 for the past 3 year and total 
career respectively. These numbers of grants demonstrate the 
availability of funds in the environments of the respondents, both 
extramurally (discipline and society) and intramurally (school and 
university) and support the respondents' reports of financial support 
in their respective environments. 
Collegial support for research 

Psychosocial and substantive support from colleagues intramurally 
and/or extramurally was perceived as a facilitator of successful 
research outcomes. Respondents described this collegial support in 
cases where colleagues were interested and open to substantive sharing 
and collaboration. Highly competitive researchers in the environment 
were described as one inhibitor to successful research. This hindrance 
of competition was described related to psychosocial interactions and 
substantive sharing among researchers, not competition within the 
individual to achieve a higher level of performance nor in competition 
for securing grant monies. The shared values for research and use of 
intramural and extramural collaboration and consultation opportunities 
for substantive and psychosocial support were evident in this domain of 
collegial support. 


Research Question Three 

The third question addressed in this research related to 

disciplinary and environmental influences through network activities 

utilized by established nurse researchers. The question was stated as 


How do established nurse researchers engage in linkage or 
network activities (intramurally and extramurally) to influence 
the dissemination and utilization of research findings? 

Collegial influences were an important environmental influence 
reported by the established nurse researcher respondents for the 
generation, dissemination, and utilization of research. Collegial 
network and linkage activities occurred between established nurse 
researchers and colleagues at the school, university, and disciplinary 
levels. '- * 

Collegial linkages with the generation of research • 

Linkages with colleagues must first be considered with the 
generation of research as the basis for dissemination and utilization 
of the findings. Since established nurse researchers were involved in 
programs of research, generation and extension of ideas and findings in 
their area of interest was a continuous, ongoing process. Extramural 
and intramural linkages with colleagues for generation of research 
occurred mainly through subscriptions to professional journals, 
membership in professional societies and organizations, mentorship, and 
utilization of communication and specific contacts. 

Extramural linkages . Professional journals provided a link with 
the discipline and the body of knowledge currently in print as 
communicated by colleagues. Established nurse researchers used journal 


subscriptions as a means of remaining "current" in their substantive 
area and for idea generation and development. The mean number of 
journals subscribed to by the group was 5.84. Reading was a method of 
continued development for keeping up with the siibstantive area and for 
the development of ideas. In addition, research-based refereed 
journals were the puJalication vehicle preferred by established nurse 
researchers for the communication of their own research findings. 

Membership in professional societies provided a link to scholars 
and colleagues in the discipline. All respondents were members of 
Sigma Theta Tau, the International Honor Society of Nursing. Eighty 
percent of respondents were members of the American Nurses' Association 
Council of Nurse Researchers which provided a link with other 
researchers in the discipline and demonstrated a preference for a peer 
group focused on research. The scholarly contributions of the 
respondents provided a basis for the fact that 55 percent were Fellows 
of the American Academy of Nursing. Respondents described shared 
expectations and evident preferences for research with these scholarly 
siabgroups in the discipline. Along with these three scholarly 
subgroups, respondents used membership in other professional 
organizations and specialty groups for intellectual stimulation, 
discussion, and substantive sharing. In their descriptions of valuable 
network activities for the nurse researcher, organizations in the 
discipline were frequently used for initial contacts to expand and 
maintain a network of peers. - 

Most respondents described past experiences when they had been 
mentored (mean = 3.30), often during educational programs. Most of 


these relationships had dissolved or changed to a collegial 
relationship. For those respondents who reported the change to a 
collegial relationship, the linkage was used as a form of communication 
with a respected colleague for idea validation and/or development and 
for consultation in the area. 

Contact with off -campus colleagues was maintained and frequent for 
established nurse researchers. Respondents reported communication with 
off-campus colleagues on a monthly (90.48%) or weekly (61.91%) basis, 
usually by telephone (85.71%) or through written communication 
(42.86%). The bulk of this communication focused on research interests 
or activities (71.19%). This communication provided a linkage for 
direct contacts specific to research for substantive sharing and 

psychosocial support for both the generation and dissemination of 

■5 , * 
research. .. I : „;. 

Intramural linkages . Communication with intramural colleagues 

focused on dialog and research activities for the generation of ideas 

and collaboration on projects. Dialog with campus-based colleagues 

provided validation of ideas, intellectual stimulation, and 

consultation for further development of the research project. This 

opportunity for discussion with colleagues and the psychosocial support 

from peers assisted with the generation or further extension of the 

research. Use of intramural links for substantive sharing was 

dependent on whether the environment supported colleagues in the same 

or related area of research interest. For established nurse 

researchers with programs of research substantially different from 

those of their intramural colleagues, extramural contacts were 


preferred to focus on the substantive area. When campus-based 
colleagues with similar research interests were available, a 
combination of intramural and extramural linkages were utilized for 
consultation and collaboration. 

Serving as a mentor to others was generally an intramural linkage 
which could lead to extramural linkages as either a mentor or 
colleague. Established nurse researchers reported a mean of 17.26 
individuals (median = 8.00) they had mentored or were currently 
mentoring. The value of the experience to the mentor fell into three 
themes, gratification, learning, and generativity. The learning theme 
provided opportunities for intellectual stimulation, interaction, and 
reflection which assisted in the generation of research. 
Collegial linkages with dissemination of research findings 

Linkages for dissemination of research were a further extension of 
those used for generation. Networking activities for substantive • 
sharing and discussion of scholarly work were utilized by established 
nurse researchers. Respondents reported that the most important 
activities for dissemination of the research was getting the results to 
colleagues and seeking out opportunities for dialog. Presentation of 
papers and publication of findings were the major vehicles used for 
dissemination of scholarly work. In addition, presentation of papers 
was described as an antecedent step to publication so that feedback 
obtained following discussion with knowledgeable and interested 
colleagues could be considered in further dissemination efforts. 

The commitment for dissemination of research findings was an 
evident value expressed by established nurse researchers. Discussion 


occurred through informal discussion or research presentations in the 
researcher's immediate school or university environments. In addition, 
intramural colleagues were frequently consulted for initial critique on 
papers and manuscripts. Extramural dissemination to colleagues and 
clinicians focused on the more formalized presentations, publications, 
or specific contacts with colleagues to discuss research. Further 
opportunities for dissemination through invited presentations, seminars, 
or consultations were seen with successful research following initial 
dissemination where positive feedback was received from colleagues or 
reviewers. "Name reception" was described related to dissemination as 
the researcher became known in the field. This extramural recognition 
of research accomplishments resulted in further dissemination 
opportunities or work on related efforts in organizations, for 
consultations, or in peer review for publications or funding. When 
applicable, dissemination was directed to health care consumers in 
society through television or radio media or in personal or group 

: W 'J 

As described by Fawcett (1984) , there are two dimensions of 
research utilization. First, implementation of the findings in 
practice. This was a goal for the research as expressed by established 
nurse researchers. Secondly, utilization of research occurs with 
further research through replications and extensions of the work. 
Extension of the work was the basis for programs of research especially 
in the direction of clinically-relevant research and/or research 
providing further specificity to the knowledge base for practice and 


nursing interventions. Eighty percent of the examples of successful 
research described had been utilized by the respondents or other 
researchers in replication or spinoff studies, with a potential for this 
percentage to increase in the future. ' 

Vehicles to promote utilization of research findings were reported 
through presentations, publications, and consultations. Presentation of 
papers focused on being available to the applicable user groups, whether 
practitioners, clinicians, other researchers, patients and families, or 
the public in general. The goal for utilization was also apparent with 
publication preferences of established nurse researchers. In selecting 
a source for publication dissemination, respondents focused on 
readership or the intended audience. A wide distribution was valued for 
dissemination to those who would be most interested in the data and be 
able to utilize the results. One respondent who described her program 
of research as "highly pragmatic", further reported her efforts to warn 
clinicians to be cautious in implementation in practice settings if the 
results of the research were initial findings where alternate 
explanations had not yet been ruled out. 

Along with dissemination, utilization was an evident value of 
established nurse researchers. Nursing research was intended to have 
some measure of application for the discipline, as a contribution to the 
knowledge base and to assist in improvement of health care needs of 
consumers. Real world implications was a theme of successful research 
with respondents describing the contribution of the example of 
successful research in the domains of pragmatics, discovery, or theory. 
Pragmatics focused on nursing interventions, improvements in care, and 


relevance to practice. Discovery concerned the extension of knowledge 
where prior data were unavailable in the knowledge base. Major 
contributions in the domain of theory focused on theory testing and 
development and contributing this to the knowledge base. This value for 
utilization was also apparent in the discussions of mentorship and the 
sense of generativity inherent in the mentor role. 

.,^. Summary 

A discussion of -findings for the research problem on those 
individual and environmental characteristics of established nurse 
researchers for the generation, dissemination, and utilization of 
successful research was presented in this chapter. First, a theoretical 
model for scholarly productivity of established nurse researchers was 
presented and related to the study findings. Following the discussion 
of the model, each of the three research questions was addressed. 
Individual characteristics of established nurse researchers in question 
one were applicable to the psychosocial and technical subsystems of the 
model while environmental characteristics described with question two 
were applicable to the managerial and structural subsystems of the 
model. Goals and values were transmitted from the environments to all 
subsystems and, therefore, applicable to both individual and 
environmental characteristics. Environments provided inputs of 
expectations, resources, and colleagues. The overall output of the 
model is successful research outcomes through the generation, 
dissemination, and utilization of nursing research. Use of collegial 
linkages was addressed in question number three. In the following 
chapter, conclusions and recommendations for further study are presented. 


The purpose of this exploratory study has been to determine 
individual and environmental characteristics of established nurse 
researchers that are related to the generation, dissemination, and 
utilization of successful research. A naturalistic inquiry paradigm 
and an organizational systems substantive paradigm were used to guide 
this research for individual and contextual factors associated with 
scholarly productivity of these leading nurse researchers. Multiple 
methods of data collection were utilized with a sample of 21 
established nurse researchers from seven leading academic institutions 
with graduate nursing programs to determine variables related to 
scholarly productivity. The research has extended the work of Batey 
(1978) and Pranulis (1984) . In this chapter, conclusions and 
recommendations from the study are presented. 

A Model for Nurse Faculty Research Productivity 

An organizational systems model was used to illustrate the 
interrelationship of individual and environmental characteristics of 
the established nurse researchers. Main inputs into the model were 
expectations, resources, and colleagues through the four environments 
of society, discipline, university, and school of nursing. The 
subsystems provided the immediate influences on the researchers with 



individual characteristics associated with the psychosocial and 
technical subsystems and environmental characteristics associated with 
the structural and managerial subsystems. The goals and values 
subsystem was concerned with both individual and environmental 
characteristics in the transmission of values from the environments to 
the subsystems. Outputs from the system were successful research 
outcomes through generation, dissemination, and utilization of research 
in the environments. 
Characteristics of established nurse researchers 

Individual characteristics of established nurse researchers 
included individual attributes which operate through the psychosocial 
and technical subsystems of the model as correlates of successful 
research outcomes in nursing. Antecedents and essential 
characteristics for successful research described by established nurse 
researchers involved individual character traits, knowledge, and 
skills. Character traits included interest, commitment and motivation, 
perseverance, creativity, independence, and an ethical sense for the 
maintenance of scientific integrity. Knowledge needed by nurse 
researchers included the knowledge base and opportunities for continued 
learning along with the humility to know when seeking help or 
consultation was appropriate. Skills for successful researchers " 
included intellectual stamina and curiosity, collegiality 
(interpersonal skills), and organizational and articulation skills. 
Socialization of successful researchers 

Socialization into the role of a nurse researcher has been one 
area identified for further investigation of scholarly outcomes in 


nursing (Ostmoe, 1984, 1986; Pranulis, 1984; Lia-Hoagberg, 1985). 
Pranulis (1984) reported that the development of a nurse researcher ^ 
identity was the one significant characteristic associated with 
research productivity but that further study was needed to identify 
influences on this identity (p.212). Lia-Hoagberg (1985) stressed the 
Importance of further investigation on professional socialization and 
the effects of institutional, departmental, personal preferences, and 
support systems for research productivity (p. 159) . This need for 
socialization into the role of researcher and scholar was apparent in 
the findings from the present research. Established nurse researchers' 
preferences for research were illustrated through the goals and values 
subsystem and influenced the four other subsystems in the model. 

socialization was a major influence on the career development of 
established nurse researchers. Respondents illustrated the occurrence 
of professional socialization in their early experiences in academic 
settings with colleagues and mentors where expectations for scholarly 
productivity were transmitted. Established nurse researchers, who were 
actively involved in the development of knowledge, viewed this as a 
responsibility especially through dissemination of research findings, 
and demonstrated a commitment to extension of knowledge through their 
research programs. These values were transmitted by the established 
nurse researchers in their environments, in addition, established 
nurse researchers reported how they socialize young scholars through 
their teaching functions and within the generativity theme of the 
mentor role. Expectations in the environment foster this socialization 
process. Graduate students reportedly sought learning and research 


experiences with faculty with demonstrated credibility in research 
activities. Through mentoring or working with these established nurse 
researchers, socialization experiences occur for the further 
development of research scholars. This was apparent in the 
respondents' perceptions of "gratification" on the accomplishments 
achieved by their present or former mentees. 
Environments of established nurse researchers 

Socialization of research scholars alone is not sufficient to 
yield the successful research exemplified by established nurse 
researchers. Established nurse researchers described their 
environments as facilitatory to research. Environmental facilitation 
was characterized through environmental expectations, administrative 
support, tangible resources, and collegial support. 

Expectations in the environments of these researchers were 
supportive for research with shared values provided through 
institutional missions, requirements for scholarly productivity, reward 
systems, and the value of research in the discipline transmitted by 
scholarly subgroups. Expectations were further promoted through 
administrative support and provision of tangible resources. 
Administrative support was demonstrated in workload allocations and 
provision of psychosocial encouragement and rewards. School and 
university environments offered access to tangible resources and 
services perceived as essential for research and for obtaining further 
extramural funds for research. The discipline provided support for 
research through its scholarly subgroups and funding organizations. 
Collegial influences included intramural and extramural linkages in the 


environments through network activities for generation, dissemination, 

and utilization of successful research outcomes. Useful linkages for 

the researcher included use of professional subscriptions, societies 

and organizations, mentorship, and purposeful direct contacts with 


Hallmarks of Successful Research Outcomes 

Findings from this research have revealed that established nurse 
researchers are involved in research activities that address the future 
hallmarks of success in nursing research identified by Fawcett (1984) ; 
(1) elimination of obstacles to nursing research, (2) acceptance of 
multiple modes of inquiry, and (3) utilization of nursing research 
findings in clinical practice (pp. 6-9) . These hallmarks represent 
disciplinary values and were exemplified by the established nurse 
researchers. v -' 

Obstacles to nursing research are minimal in the case of 
established nurse researchers in the leading academic environments 
studied. Socialization for research activities occurred early in the 
careers of established nurse researchers who indicated that they 
currently influence mentees, colleagues, and the discipline of nursing 
by their example and through their successful research outcomes. 
Established nurse researchers clearly addressed the advanced academic 
preparation essential for nursing research and demonstrated how they 
have furthered their own development of expertise through self-selected 
study strategies. Established nurse researchers were engaged in a 
variety of research activities, with many involved in multiple 
projects. In their recommendations for further development by 


colleagues and students, they illustrated that nurses should be 
involved in all forms of research activities, with all research 
activities viewed as valuable. Collaborative research ventures with 
more established researchers were recommended to complement knowledge 
bases. Environmental facilitation for research was apparent in the 
environments of the established nurse researchers, especially through 
administrative support in workload allocation for the commitment of 
time within their faculty roles for research. This awareness of the 
need for time to conduct research within the academic position was 
apparent but it should also be noted that established nurse researchers 
reported that they work approximately 60 hours per week. 

Established nurse researchers exemplified use of multiple modes of 
inquiry in that several were involved in both predominantly 
quantitative and qualitative methods. In addition, several researchers 
described plans for further study and development in a new area of 
design or analysis. Established nurse researchers were knowledgeable 
in the variety of modes of inquiry available to the researcher and 
identified colleagues who were skilled in these areas and available for 
consultation, often in their own environments. 

Utilization of research findings was demonstrated in that 80 
percent of the studies identified by the established nurse researchers 
as examples of successful research had already been used in either 
practice or further research through replications and spinoff studies. 
In addition, respondents described research preferences for 
practice-relevant research, especially as programs of research evolved. 
Methods described to promote utilization of successful research studies 


were reported primarily through dissemination of findings in " 
publications, paper presentations, dialog with colleagues and 
practitioners, and research consultation and collaboration. 

Established nurse researchers exemplified these hallmarks for 
success in research and communicated these values to others. Their 
influence on other nurses will continue to provide further extension of 
these hallmarks through the transmission of goals and values for 
research and the socialization of research scholars. 

Recommendations and Implications 
Recommendations for enhancing future successful research outcomes 
in nursing are presented in these areas: administrative roles, 
facilitatory environments, funding priorities, education, and further 
research. These recommendations are similar to those proposed by 
others in the discipline (American Nurses' Association Cabinet on 
Nursing Research, 1985? Batey, 1978; Brimmer et al., 1983; 
Lia-Hoagberg, 1985; National Center For Nursing Research, 1986; - 
Pranulis S Gortner, 1985; Stevenson & Woods, 1986). 
Recommendation One; Administrative roles 

Academic deans and other administrators facilitate faculty 
members' development of and involvement in programs of 
research through workload allocations, provision of resources 
targeted for research, and support for continued development. 

Administrative roles must be directed at the support of research 
and scholarly productivity through general managerial characteristics, 
workload allocations, and support for successful research outcomes. 


Administrators can promote the development of research scholars and 
provide resources directed at the accomplishment of research projects. 
Individuals can be recruited and appointed to positions based on their 
possession of antecedent attributes of the research scholar and/or 
evidence of scholarly productivity to utilize effectively resources in 
the environment. Administrators can then direct the use of services 
and resources to promote development of the essential characteristics 
of character traits, knowledge, and skills of the research scholar and 
encourage the accomplishment of successful research outcomes. 

Leading academic environments have become more facilitative for 
research since Batey's (1978) investigation and recommendation 
concerning the elimination of the term "release time" for research. 
Workload allocations should be implemented over the more transient 
concept of release time to make research integral to the role of the 
nurse as a research scholar. Employment contracts and job descriptions 
should include reference to expected productivity outside of teaching, 
administrative, or service functions, with these expectations clearly 
communicated and reinforced by administrators. 

Administrative facilitation for research should be directed at 
providing both psychosocial and substantive support. Psychosocial 
support should include encouragement and recognition of scholarly 
productivity. Travel money and resources for research can be used as 
tangible reinforcement for scholarly productivity. Substantive support 
should be provided through workload allocations considering preferences 
and stability in teaching assignments and flexibility in research 
activities. Administrative, school, and research team meetings should 


be conducted efficiently with reasonable committee responsibilities. 
When possible, structural controls which hinder research activities 
should be limited. For example, provision of resources like 
secretarial services, research assistants, and intramural funds can be 
facilitated with direct and limited application or proposal processes. 
Research support units can be used to focus on the provision of these 
resources and services within the immediate environments of research 
scholars. Overall, the expectations are transmitted, successful 
research outcomes encouraged and reinforced, and continuing knowledge 
generation, dissemination and utilization stressed. 
Recommendation Two; Facilitatory Environments 

Practice, educational, and disciplinary environments must be 
developed for facilitation of research scholars in nursing. 
Environmental facilitation should be directed to expectations 
in the environment, administrative support, tangible resources, 
and collegial support. \ " 

Expectations for research and scholarly productivity in the 
environment provide shared values to researchers. These shared values 
must be demonstrated through missions, performance requirements, reward 
systems, and the overall valuing of research in the profession. 
Congruent perceptions on the importance of research and scholarship and 
expectations for performance should be apparent for individual research 
scholars and their respective institutions. Administrative support, 
tangible resources, and colleagues in the environment provide visible 
evidence of the importance for research and scholarship. 


Scholarly subgroups and funding organizations support the research 
scholar through validation of efforts and provision of psychosocial and 
tangible support. Support must be further extended into the profession 
as a whole. This extension has begun with the evolving role for the 
research scholar in practice settings. Additional academic and 
practice settings should become facilitative to the researcher for the 
generation, dissemination, and utilization of successful research 
outcomes. *. 

Tangible resources include those monetary and non-monetary 
resources and services available in the environment for use in research 
activities. Established nurse researchers are employed in environments 
which provide essential services and resources or opportunities for 
access to these tangible resources. Environments facilitate access to 
these basic resources, including secretarial services, computer 
resources, access to subjects, financial support for small projects, 
libraries, assistance with data collection, physical space, and media 


Research Support Units can be used to coordinate availability of 
services and facilitate access to resources. These specialized units 
are also valuable in that the focus is on scholarly productivity with 
the researcher taking an active role in seeking needed resources 
particular to the research project. This facilitation can save the 
researcher time in discovering availability of resources and in seeking 
the requisite services. The units can also provide an equal access to 
all researchers, based on the merits of individual proposals or 
projects. Established nurse researchers described Research Support 


Units as particularly valuable for the novice researcher through 
consultation services and available learning opportunities. 

Funding has been described as a major facilitator for research 
activities, especially when the scope and complexity of the project 
increases. Intramural funding was available in some amount in all 
institutions studied. Budgetary allowances for such monetary resources 
are in place in organizational environments, for example, at the school 
and/or university level (s). 

Network opportunities were utilized by established nurse 
researchers for intellectual stimulation, discussion, and substantive 
sharing. The value of network activities related to (1) initial 
contacts to expand the network, (2) non-specific contacts at meetings 
to maintain the network, and (3) direct goal-oriented contacts to focus 
on the generation, dissemination, and utilization of research. The 
profession must continue to communicate the value of research to the 
discipline and provide opportunities focused on research and specific 
audiences for effective dissemination and utilization of the present 
and evolving body of nursing knowledge. Individual researchers must 
then utilize these opportunities to focus on research and expanding 
their own network in the area of research preference. 
Recommendation Three; Funding Priorities for Nursing Research 
Allocate funded support research in two important areas: 
(1) for clinically relevant studies which contribute to the 
advancement of nursing science and (2) for development of 
expertise in research through adequately supported postdoctoral 
fellowships in nursing. 


The priority for clinically relevant research is currently being 
supported by the National Center for Nursing Research at the National 
Institutes of Health (1986) and the scholarly subgroups of nursing, 
such as the American Nurses' Association Cabinet on Nursing Research. 
Postdoctoral fellowships have currently been identified by the National 
Center for Nursing Research at the National Institutes of Health (1986) 
as an area of funding priority. Established nurse researchers, as 
leaders in the discipline, further identified the need for clinically 
relevant research and realistic postdoctoral fellowship opportunities. 
Priorities in these areas will further develop the body of knowledge 
and provide a critical mass of established researchers for the 

Recommendation Four; Education and Development of Research Scholars 
Focus educational preparation of nurses on facilitating the 
development of antecedents and essential characteristics needed 
by the research scholar for successful research outcomes. 

The development of research scholars is a major function of 
institutions providing advanced academic preparation for nurses. Based 
on the experiences of established nurse researchers, development of 
individual research scholars should be promoted with students, neophyte 
researchers, and research colleagues. 

Students . In the case of students, socialization on the status 
and value of research should be initiated in their basic academic 
education. Beginning practitioners should become knowledgeeible 
consumers of research literature for potential utilization of findings 


of successful research. This would increase scholarly expectations and 
the status given to research in the profession in general, thus 
extending beyond the current focus in academic and scholarly subgroups 
identified by established nurse researchers. Graduate education should 
be stressed and allow for opportunities for active participation in the 
research process. Opportunities for involvement in research activities 
should be designed to stimulate the development of antecedent character 
traits, knowledge, and skills of the nurse researcher. 

Faculty with programs of research can promote the development of 
the antecedent character traits of interest, commitment and motivation, 
perseverance, creativity, independence, and ethics through role 
modeling and mentoring activities with students serving as research 
assistants. Active involvement of students in actual research 
activities appropriate to their program requirements and substantive 
areas can complement development of knowledge bases through enrollment 
in coursework. Acquisition of knowledge should be characterized as a 
building process for continued development of the knowledge base in 
both methodologic and substantive areas through directed, self- 
selected, and collaborative learning experiences. Through these same 
activities, students can be assisted in the development of the mental, 
interpersonal, organizational, and articulation skills for nursing 

It is being recognized increasingly that a strong academic 
preparation for nursing practitioners is needed. Similarly, research 
scholars need a strong advanced academic preparation for successful 
research outcomes. This socialization process through a strong 


academic background and association with established scholars is the 
basis for the development of the identity needed as a nurse researcher. 
As exemplified by established nurse researchers, this identity must be 
internalized as a career commitment and not restricted to functions 
within a 40-hour week. 

Neophyte researchers . The period following completion of graduate 
programs is a critical period for communicating research expectations 
to the neophyte researcher and encouraging the development of the 
essential characteristics of the nurse scholar. Formal or informal 
postdoctoral studies and/or work with a mentor can greatly assist 
neophyte researchers during this critical period. Postdoctoral studies 
were described as providing the researcher with the opportunity to 
solidify research interests, gain experience, be relieved of workload 
responsibilities, broaden or practice skills, and work with a mentor. 
This opportunity allows for development of the essential 
characteristics by capitalizing on character traits, knowledge, and 
skills of the research scholar. 

A goal of this period is the development of a viable program of 
research. Opportunities for mentorship should be available and 
utilized for implementation of the support and learning themes 
described by established nurse researchers. Support through mentorship 
is provided through encouragement and guidance related to career 
development and the building of a program of research. Learning is 
enhanced through mentors who serve as role models, advisers, 
supporters, and facilitators. Character traits, knowledge, and skills 
are communicated in the values, standards, and activities needed for 


generation, dissemination, and utilization of nursing research. This 
is a time of development of effective research habits focused on 
environments for optimum productivity, time management, ongoing 
research activity, and being methodical. Mentors can assist the 
neophyte researcher in establishing priorities for research and methods 
for time management. Involvement in collaborative projects can also 
assist in the development of knowledge and skills by the neophyte 
researcher and in the division of labor in research activities. 

This critical period in the development of the research scholar is 
the time for establishing the program of research and obtaining the 
resources to support it, as with intramural and extramural funding and 
collegial networks. Support for projects is sought through new 
investigator grants and intramural grants. Acquisition of small 
research grants and work with mentors in the area will allow the 
neophyte researcher to develop the initial "track record" of the 
research scholar. Development of both intramural and extramural 
psychosocial and substantive linkages extend the supportive network of 
the research scholar for generation, dissemination, and utilization of 
nursing research. In the work environment, expectations for research 
accomplishments are demanded and, at the same time, facilitated through 
psychosocial encouragement and support, realistic workloads, and stable 
teaching assignments in the area of research preference. 

Research scholars . The term "research scholar" is used here to 
connote the individual's ongoing activity in a program of research for 
the generation, dissemination, and utilization of research outcomes. 
Nurses with programs of research must also be encouraged in continued 


development of the essential character traits, knowledge, and skills 
for research expertise and ongoing productivity. Collegiality with 
peers in academia and practice should be promoted, whether on 
collaborative research projects or in consultation with intramural and 
extramural colleagues. The research scholar's influence in the 
discipline should be expanding through broadening extramural linkages 
for dissemination and utilization of research outcomes. The four 
themes of successful research (personal interest and motivation, 
methodological rigor, importance to the discipline, and real world 
implications) should be apparent with their research programs and 
individual projects. This is a time of increased work in research . 
leading to involvement in multiple projects and acquisition of 
intramural and extramural funding for these projects. These 
individuals should assume the responsibility for socializing students 
and neophyte researchers, particularly through collaborative and 
mentoring activities. 
Recommendation Five: Future Research in the Area 

Based on the findings in this study, several issues emerge which 
warrant further investigation. Replication of the study with nurse 
researchers in practice settings is recommended to further explore the 
individual and environmental characteristics which lead to successful 
research outcomes. Study of the practice environment will provide an 
opportunity to discover if the individual character traits, knowledge, 
and skills of researchers must continue to be present and what 
differences may occur or what environmental linkages and resources must 
be present to interact efficiently with the individual characteristics. 


Examples of successful research studies cited by the established 
nurse researchers further supported the following four themes of 
successful research: personal interest and motivation, methodological 
rigor, importance to the discipline, and real world implications. A 
second area for further investigation is the development of an 
instrument to assess the potential success of a research study based on 
these themes. 

A third area for further research is development of an instrument 
to measure acquisition and levels of individual antecedent character 
traits, knowledge, and skills that are needed for successful research. 
These antecedent and essential characteristics were identified as 
necessary for the nurse scholar. Specification of learning strategies 
at undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate levels to focus on 
acquisition and integration of the attributes of a research scholar 
would provide further data to evaluate how these individual 
characteristics can be developed effectively. The design of an optimum 
reward system for production of successful research outcomes would also 
be of interest to further stimulate development of the attributes of the 
research scholar. 


In this study, the individual and environmental characteristics of 
established nurse researchers were investigated. Interactions between 
these individual and environmental characteristics were illustrated with 
an organizational systems model. Established nurse researchers 
identified and exemplified antecedent and essential individual 
characteristics for successful research outcomes. Environmental 


facilitation for successful research outcomes was apparent in the 
academic and disciplinary environments described by the established 
nurse researchers. This chapter has included conclusions from the study 
and recommendations for administrative roles, facilitatory environments, 
funding priorities, education, and further research. 


; •>■ 8 





CRITERIA DEMONSTRATED BY THE NOMINEE ; (Please indicate all that apply) 

Category B (Must meet 2 of 4) 

Category A (Must meet all) 

[ ] Has an existing program of 
funded research. 

[ ] Has provided leadership to 
a research team. 

[ ] Has published research findings 
in the past four years in one 
or more of these journals: 

Nursing Research 
Research in Nursing S Health 
Journal of Advanced Nursing 
Advances in Nursing Science 
Western Journal of Nursing Research 
International Journal of Nursing 

[ ] Findings from past research studies have: 

[ ] been utilized in nursing practice, 

academic, or administrative settings 

[ ] lead to external replications of the 
research methodology. 

[ ] Holds a doctoral degree. 

[ ] Is employed full-time at an academic 
institution with an advanced graduate 
nursing program. 

[ ] Has presented research 
findings at one or more 

[ ] Has received one or more 
regional/national research 
awards : 

[ ] Holds current membership in 
the ANA Council of Nurse 

[ ] Holds current membership in 
other professional research 










Rose T. Kearney 
3614-B SW 29th Terrace 
Gainesville, Florida 32608 
Phone (904) 373-8966 

You have been nominated to participate in a national research project. 
This consent form is designed to provide you with information about this 
nursing study and to answer any questions you may have. 

The purpose of this research is to explore individual and environmental 
characteristics of established nurse researchers and to analyze the epistemic 
(knowledge-building) processes used in scholarly nursing endeavors. Specific 
aims of the study are: 

1. What precursors (antecedents) and personal characteristics do 
established nurse researchers identify as contributing to and 
influencing successful research outcomes and other scholarly endeavors? 

2. What environmental variables do established nurse researchers identify 
as being essential to the support and success of their research and the 
research process? 

3. How do established nurse researchers engage in linkage/network 
activities (intramurally and extramurally) to influence dissemination, 
diffusion, and utilization of research findings? 

The research methods will be qualitative and quantitative. Data 
collection methods will include on-site interviews with the study participants 
and possibly additional interviews by telephone or mail if the need arises. 
The researcher will use semi-structured interviews and other instruments to 
collect data that will address the aims of the study. 

Only aggregate information will be released when research findings are 
disseminated. Study participants will be given the opportunity to be involved 
in the review of the research findings prior to publication and dissemination 
of the results. No actual risks have been identified or are anticipated. 

Potential benefits of the study are numerous. The study should result in 
benefits for the study participants, the nursing profession, and ultimately, 
health care consumers by improving our understanding of the characteristics of 
established nurse researchers and their environments which result in further 
development of the body of nursing knowledge through scholarly productivity. 



Informed Consent Form — page 2 

Analysis of structure and process used by established nurse researchers and 
the nature of their organizational environments that nurture nursing 
scholarship will increase the quality and quantity of nursing research. 

You have been nominated by your Dean because you meet the criteria for 
an "established nurse researcher," are well grounded in the research 
process, and have demonstrated commitment to advancing the discipline of 
nursing. If you are willing to participate in the study, please read the . 
agreement, sign the consent form, and return page 2 in the addressed, 
stamped envelope by April 30, 1986 . 


I would like to participate in this project and agree to the researcher 
visiting my institution to conduct a personal interview (2 hours) with me. 
I understand that the interview will be audiotaped for the purpose of 
accurate data collection. The date and time for the interview will be 
arranged at my convenience. I also agree to provide additional information 
needed by telephone or by mail at no personal cost or at no cost to my 
institution. I also understand that I will not receive an honorarium for my 
participation in the study. I am free to withdraw from the study and 
discontinue participation in this research project at any time. 


I further extend my permission to the interviewer to audiotape at interview 
for the purpose of accurate data collection. 

Signature: ^__ 


(Please Sign and Return this Page) 





General Inforination ; Based on your expertise as an established nurse 
researcher, you have been selected to participate in a national study to 
focus on how established nurse researchers formulate significant research 
questions and what characteristics they attribute to success in research 
activities. This profile has been designed as a preliminary step to 
individual and group interviews. The questionnaire has been designed to 
assist in addressing the following study aims: 

*What precursors (antecedents) and personal characteristics 
do established nurse researchers identify as contributing 
to and influencing successful research outcomes and other 
scholarly endeavors? 

*What environmental variables do established nurse researchers 
identify as being essential to the support and success of 
their research and the research process? 

*How do established nurse researchers engage in linkage/network 
activities (intramurally and extramurally) to influence the 
dissemination, diffusion, and utilization of research findings? 

Please complete Parts A through E as completely as possible. Section F is 
for additional comments for you to include any further information which you 
feel is pertinent. 





Year Earned 19 


Degree [ ] M.A. [ ] M.N. [ ] M.S. [ ] M.S.N. [ ] Other 


Year Earned 



Degree [ ] D.N.S. [ ] Ed.D. [ ] Ph.D. [ ] Other 


Year Earned 19 

Area of Study 


Year Earned 19 

POST-DOCTORAL WORK: Please describe all formal post-doctoral work, 

including fellowships, formal coursework, etc. 
(Attach additional pages, if desired.) 



Description of Work 



CLINICAL SPECIALTY: Please select the one area which best reflects 

your area of clinical specialization. 

Adult Health 

Community / Family Health 

Child Health 

Gerontology / Aging 

Mental Health 

Parent-Child Health / Maternal-Infant 

Women's Health 



Please indicate the number of professional 
journals to which you currently subscribe. 




Please indicate the professional societies 
in which you currently hold membership. 

American Academy of Nursing 

ANA Council of Nurse Researchers 

Sigma Theta Tau 

Society for Research in Nursing Education 



RANK [ ] Assistant Professor 

[ ] Associate Professor 

[ ] Professor 

[ ] Other 


Do you hold an additional titled position other than 
your indicated professorial rank? 

[ ] No 

[ ] Yes, identify: 

YEARS AT CURRENT LOCATION: Please indicate the number of years of 

full-time service at your current place of employment. 

years . ■ . .. , .,-■'',■ 


[ ] Tenured 
[ ] Nontenured 

Tenure tract position? 

I ] Yes 
[ ] NO 

PROGRAM ASSIGNMENT: Please indicate your program assignment (s) , by 


% Baccalaureate 

% Masters 

% Doctoral 

'% Other 


Please indicate the number of years of full-time academic 
appointments that you have held in a college or 
university setting. 



PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY: Please indicate your official contract 
responsibilities, by percentages. 

% Teaching/Instruction: 

Student/Faculty Ratio ;1 

% Administration 

% Research 

% Practice 

% Other 

JOB-RELATED ACTIVITIES: Please indicate weekly averages , in hours . 

Teaching/instruction (in classroom) 

Classroom preparation 

Counseling/advising students 

Clinical supervision 

Clinical preparation 

Grading papers 

Membership on thesis committees 

Chairing thesis committees 

Membership on dissertation committees 

Chairing dissertation committees 

School, college, and campus meetings 

Clinical practice 

Research activities 

Research consultation 

Writing, including grants and publications 

Community service 

Other: ' " " I i 


On the average, how many hours per week do you work (including work 
at home ) ? ... 


On the average, what percentage of your working time is spent alone? 



PRIMARY INSTITUTIONAL MISSION: Please indicate what you perceive to 
be the primary institutional mission at your institution. 

[ ] Teaching/instruction 

[ ] Research 

( ] Service 

[ 1 Other 



AGE years 

SEX [ ] female 

[ ] male 


American Indian 

Asian or Pacific Islander 










FATHER: Please check one in each column which best describes your 
father's occupational and educational background. 


Highest Educational Level/Degree 



Other health professional 


Lawyer or engineer 

Member of the clergy 

Military officer 

Teacher or school administrator 

Other professional occupation 


Worker, skilled 

Worker, semi-skilled 

Worker, unskilled 

Grammar school or less 
Some high school 
High school diploma 
Vocational-technical training 
Some college 
Undergraduate degree 
Some graduate school 
Master's degree 
Master's degrees (more than 1) 
Doctoral degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., 
M.D., J.D., D.D.S., etc.) 

MOTHER: Please check one in each column which best describes your 
mother's occupational and educational background. 



Highest Educational Level/Degree 



Other health professional 


Lawyer or engineer 

Member of the clergy 

Military officer 

Teacher or school administrator 

Other professional occupation 


Worker, skilled 

Worker, semi-skilled 

Worker, unskilled 

Grammar school or less 
Some high school 
High school diploma 
Vocational-technical training 
Some college 
Undergraduate degree 
Some graduate school 
Master's degree 
Master's degrees (more than 1) 
Doctoral degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., 
M.D., J.D., D.D.S., etc.) 



Number of brothers 
Number of sisters 

Your ordinal position in family 

[ 1 


[ ] 


[ ] 


[ ] 


[ ] 




[ ] 


[ ] 


[ ] 


I ] 

3 ■ - 

[ ] 


[ ] 

more than 4 

\ *" 


Who or what has been the greatest influence on your professional 
nursing career and why? (Please describe the relationship) . 

■■;.<}■-•' - • - , , 
^ " • . ■ • .- » •1- 

Who or what has had the greatest influence on your research 
success and why? (Please describe the relationship) . 

MOBILITY: Please indicate the number of major career moves from one 
institution to another during your professional career. 

Career moves 


SCHOLARLY ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Please indicate a count for your scholarly 
accomplishments in the past 3 years and for your career to date. 



Book chapters/monographs 
Refereed journals 
Non-refereed journals 
Published book reviews 

Papers Presented at 

International meetings 
National meetings 
Regional meetings 

Career Activities (total) 


Career Activities (total) 

Research Projects & Grants 

Grants obtained 

DHHS Div. of Nursing 
Other Federal sources 
A.N. A. 

Sigma Theta Tau, Inc. 
Other National sources 
Sigma Theta Tau, local 
University sponsored 
College sponsored 
Other : 

Consultations (include all types of official, 
off-site consultations) 


-■- • 




































Editorial Boards 

Research Awards and Honors 


(Attach additional pages or curriculum vitae, if desired.) 


F. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Please include any additional comments you feel 

are pertinent. 

Thank you for your cooperation. Please return the completed questionnaire 
in the stamped self -addressed envelope. 

Rose Kearney *** 3614-B SW 29th Terrace *** Gainesville, Florida 32608 ** 




General Information : Please think back over nursing research projects you 
have been involved in and identify one you would consider quite successful 
that IS, one that has made or will make a significant contribution to nursing. 
The notion of a successful research project includes all kinds of research 
(qualitative or quantitative) . The research should have been completed, 
written and reported in the literature or at professional meetings. Please 
keep m mind the same successful research project in answering all questions. 

The successful research would be one that received positive acceptance by 
reviewers and colleagues,, perhaps been cited, generated positive feedback 
from readers, and recognized as making a major contribution to the field. 

Procedure ; Part I includes questions that are structured and semi-structured 
Please complete these items and include brief reactions to concerning the 
successful research study you have selected. Questions included in Part II 
ask you to rate the research on a five-point scale. 

\ - 



1. Please explain the purpose of the research. 

2. How did the research originate? 
Where did the idea come from? 

How was the idea further developed? 
How were research questions generated? 

T^^A: lT.Z-1: '^'[i^;:^;^^^-^-^^^^ ---p- 


3. What was there about the project that excited or attracted you at 
the time? 

4. Was the research funded? 
[ ] No 
[ ] Yes Amount of funds: $ 

Source of funds: 

What was your role? [ ] PI [ ] Co-PI 

[ ] Investigator/Research Team 
. .... [ ] Other 

5. Has the research been published? 
[ ] No 
[ ] Yes Publication Source 

] Book or book chapter 

] Monograph 

] Refereed journal 

] Non-refereed journal 

] Other 

6. What is the best single reference for your research in the 

7. Describe your perceptions of the research success in terms of: 
(a) Acceptance and feedback from reviewers? 

(b) General acceptance by the field? 

(c) Reprint requests and citations? 

iy— - -.-^jt^ -r v:" 


8. Describe factors that facilitated the origination of the research, 
for example, 
(a) Roles? 

(b) Organizational context or environment? 

(c) Reward system? 

(d) Other factors perceived as facilitators at the time? 

9. Describe factors that hindered the origination of the research, 
for example, , ,. 
(a) Roles? - -' • 

I ':-\ 

(b) Organizational context or environment? 

(c) Reward system? 

(d) Other factors perceived as hindrances at the time? 

10. Consider efforts toward extending this research. 

Have you done any original replications? [ ] No 

[ ] Yes. How many? 

Have replications been done by others? [ ] No 

[ ] Yes. How many? 

Have you done any spinoffs from the original research? 
[ ] No 

[ ] Yes. How many different kinds? 



Are you aware of any spinoffs done by others? 
[ ] No 

[ ] Yes. How many? 


11. Describe your efforts toward disseminating the research. 

12. Describe efforts toward utilizing the findings from the research. 


Describe linkages/networks used to interest others in using or 
extending the research findings. (Organizations, contracts. 


-ii. -J V 

14. Describe methods of persuasion used to interest others in using or 
extending the research findings. 

15. What do you see as the major contribution of the research 

project to 


Motivation for the Research 

The following is a series of questions to complete about your motivation 
for doing the research. Please respond on the basis of a five-point 
scale that represents the extent to which each statement applies to the 
project. A "0" indicates to no extent and a "4" indicates to a great 
extent. Mark "NA" for not applicable. Please keep in mind the same 
successful research project used in Part I. 


Rating Scale 
No Great 

Extent Extent 

1. ... was to test previously established 

relationships on a new sample of participants 1 2 3 4 NA 

2. ... was to add a new variable or new 
combination of variables to the study of an 

established phenomenon 1 2 3 4 NA 

3. ... was use an improved, more rigorous method 
than was previously used to study an established 

phenomenon (greater internal validity) 1 2 3 4 NA 

4. ... was to adopt and use a method originally 

developed for use in another field of research.... 1 2 3 4 NA 

5. ... was to bring together ideas from two or 

more fields or subfields of study 1 2 3 4 NA 

6. ... was to investigate a topic because it was 

controversial or in dispute 1 2 3 4 NA 

7. ... was to test directly competing theories or 

models about a phenomenon 1 2 3 4 NA 

8. ... reflected your personal interest and curiosity 
more than acceptability and interest to the 

discipline 1 2 3 4 NA 


B. Epistemological Issues 

Please use the same five-point scale to respond to the way the research 
process was conducted. 

Rating Scale 
TO WHAT EXTENT ... No Great 

Extent Extent 

8. ... was the research based on methods that were 
convenient for you to execute (familiarity, 

expense, facilities, etc.) 1 2 3 4 NA 

■ y. 

9. ... was the research exploratory and open-ended 

(asking questions rather than testing hypotheses) 1 2 3 4 NA 

10. ... were the variables of interest quantifiable 
(e.g., size easily quantifiable as counting number 

of patients; power is illusive and intangible) ... 1 2 3 4 NA 

11. — did you have firm expectations about the 

outcomes 1 2 3 4 NA 

12. ... was statistical significance the indicator of 

valuable results 1 2 3 4 NA 

13. ... would you have abandoned dissemination of this 
research if the findings were statistically 
significant, but in your opinion, these findings 

were of questionable value 1 2 3 4 NA 

14. ... are the results applicable to nursing practice, 

education, or administration 1 2 3 4 NA 

15. — are results significant in some way other than 

that defined by research procedure 1 2 3 4 NA 


C. Ethical Issues 

Please take a few moments to reflect on ethical issues and concerns that 
may have arisen during the course of the research project. Please use 
the same five-point scale to respond to the following items. 


Rating Scale 
No Great 

Extent Extent 

16. ... result in benefits for patients in spite 

of any discomfort and pain to research subjects... 

17. ... result in benefits for nursing in spite of 
ethical concerns 

18. ... potential for publications influence the 
conduct of the research 

19. ... pose problems in gaining informed consent 

from subjects 





D. Outcome (results) of the Research 

Rating Scale 
No Great 

Extent Extent 

20. ... identify a relationship between variables 

that were previously believed not to be related... 

21. ... provide evidence that a previously accepted 
relationship actually has the opposite sign 

(now - instead of + or + instead of -) 

22. ... provide evidence that a previously accepted 
causal relationship is actually in the opposite 
direction (x — > y, not y — >) 

23. ... determine that diverse phenomena are united 

by a single explanation 

24. ... provide evidence that a standard phenomenon 
(construct) is actually composed of several sub- 







D. Outcome (results) of the Research (continued) 

Rating Scale 

Extent Extent 

25. ... develop a new explanation for an already 

accepted relationship between variables 1 2 3 4 NA 

26. ... provide evidence that a phenomenon previously 
argued to be bad (inefficient, immoral, dysfunctional) 
is actually good (efficient, moral, functional) 

or visa versa 1 2 3 4 NA 

27. ... develop a new theoretical construct or variable 

for use in the field 1 2 3 4 NA 

28. ... help resolve a controversial or disputed issue 

in nursing 1 2 3 4 NA 

29. ... clarify a poorly understood or cloudy issue .. 1 2 3 4 NA 

E. Regarding the Successful Research Project . . . 

31. Has it been published in a book or professional journal? [ ] Yes [ ] No 

32. Has it been presented at a professional meeting? [ ] Yes [ ] No 

33. Was it funded? [ ] Yes [ ] No 

34. What was the predominant research approach used? (Check one) 

[ ] Quantitative 

[ ] Qualitative 

[ ] Both Quantitative and Qualitative 

Comments : 

Thank you for your cooperation. 
Please return the completed questionnaire in the envelope provided. 

*** Rose Kearney *** 3614-B SW 29th Terrace *** Gainesville, Florida 32608 *** 




I. Introduction and Purpose 

A. Introduction 

B. Purpose ; To meet with ENR in order to explore factors related to 

successful research and scholarly endeavors, particularly 
individual and environmental factors. 

II. Clarification of Responses on Pre-interview Instruments 

A. General 

Is there anything in particular that you would like to 
discuss from the earlier materials which you completed? 

B. Family Background 

On the pre-interview profile, you indicated 
parents educational level: Father 


occupation : Father 


In addition, you indicated you had siblings and that 

your ordinal position was . 

Do you feel that these family factors had an influence on 
your career development? No [ ] 

Yes [ ] 
Please describe: 

C. Post-Doctoral Work 

On the profile you indicated [ ] no post-doctoral work 

[ ] months post-doc. 

[ ] other : 

What influence does post doctoral work have on subsequent 
research and scholarly endeavors? 

On a scale of 1 to 10 , how valuable is the opportunity 
for post-doctoral studies? 

Please describe; 


D. Career Influences 

You reported career influences of: 

Would you please elaborate further on these? 

You reported research success influences of: 
Please elaborate further. 

E. Other ; Opportunity for clarification of specific items 

1. Pre-Interview Profile 

2. Perceptions of Successful Research 

III. Perceptions of Scholarly and Research Orientation 

A- Perceived Importance of Research, Teaching, and Service 

Consider the 3 general university missions 
(instruction/teaching, research, and service). 

How would you rank these activities (1-2-3) in terms of 

expectations at your institution? 




B. Preference for Research, Teaching, and Service 

Now, rank your own preference for these 3 activities. 




C. Congruence of Expectations 

What importance do these two rankings have for the nurse 


IV. Perceptions of Individual Characteristics Related to Success as a 
Nurse Researcher 

A. Characteristics 

1. What are the most valuable attributes (antecedents) for 
research and scholarship? 

2. What characteristics do you feel are most essential for 
a nurse researcher or scholar? 

B. Perceived Expectations 

What are your own personal expectations for scholarly 

V. Perceptions of Environmental Characteristics which Promote Nursing 
Research and Other Forms of Scholarly Productivity 

A. Environmental Characteristics 

1. What environmental characteristics most effectively promote 
nursing research activities? 

( i 

(a) Generally, in the profession 

(b) In academia 

(c) In service agencies 

2. How would you describe the environment in which you work? 

B. In Batey's (1978) study on the structure and process of 
productive research environments at university schools of 
nursing, she recommended elimination of use of the term "release 

1. How do you feel about this recommendation? 

2. Could the term "release time" affect faculty perceptions of 
investigative activities as inherent to the faculty role? 

3. Lack of time is frequently cited as a barrier to research, 
yet, productive nursing researchers arrange their priorities 
to include scholarly activities. How do you make time for 
research as part of you faculty role? 



C. Perceived Environmental Expectations 

1. What do you perceive to be the expectations for scholarly 
productivity on the part of the: 

(a) institution 

(b) your academic colleagues 

(c) the nursing profession 

2. Consider your personal expectations for scholarly 
productivity and those of the institution. 

(a) Commonalities? 

(b) Differences? 

D. Environmental Facilitators . ^ 

1. What support services for research and scholarly endeavors 
in the environment should be considered: 

(a) essential, 

(b) desirable, not essential / 

(c) not necessary 

2. What environmental provisions would you find 

(a) most useful 

(b) least useful " '. " - - '- 

VI. Research Preferences • 

A. Areas of Study/Focus ;'" 

1. What areas of research do you prefer? 

] Fundamental Processes (e.g., biology and behavior) 

] Nursing Practice (e.g., nursing process, intervention) 

] Nursing Profession (focus on practitioner/nursing society) 

] Delivery of Nursing Services (provision of services) 

] Nursing Education (process of education) 

(Bloch, 1985, p. 133) 

2. Have most of your research and publications been in this 

3. What factors contributed to this preference? 

4. Would you say that you have a "research program?" [ ] No 

[ ] Yes 

If yes, please describe your research program. 


VII. Linkages and networks used in the generation, dissemination, and 

utilization of research (translation and transmission of the research 
process and techniques to students, colleagues, and consumers) 

A. Communication with Colleagues 

1. How frequently do you communicate with colleagues off -campus? 

[ ] Daily 

[ ] Several times per week 

[ ] Weekly 

[ ] Every few months 

[ ] When the opportunity arises at professional meetings 

[ ] When the need arises; no regular basis 

[ ] Other 

2. What types of communications do you use most frequently? 

(e.g., phone, correspondence, meetings; national, 

3. Describe the usual nature of these communications. 

(e.g., co-authorship of work, grant consultation, other) 

4. How does your communication with colleagues influence the 
dissemination of your scholarly work? 

5. On a scale of 1 to 10 , how important are networking 
activities in research? 

Please describe this importance. 

B. Types of Activities 

What types of linkages/networks are most valuable for the nurse 



Mentor-Mentee Relationships 


Have you had any mentors who have been particularly helpful 
in development of your research expertise? 

[ ] NO 

[ ] Yes How many? 

Was this a valuable experience for you? [ ] No 

[ ] Yes 

Please describe: 

2. How many individuals have you served as a mentor for? 

Was this a valuable experience for you? [ ] No 

[ ] Yes 
Please describe: 

3. In what ways did you perceive that your mentoring activities 
were valuable for the mentee's development as a researcher? 

4. What are the hazards of mentorship? 

(a) to the mentor ; , " . • 

(b) to the mentee v„.^ - -' 

(c) to the investigation 

VIII. Factors which promote research skills and scholarly productivity 
A. Early Publications 

Some of the literature indicates that early publication habits 
(prior to terminal degree) are related to later (career) 
publication rates. j 

[From profile: Career Total (all kinds) ] 

I Past 3 years (all kinds) ] 

How many publications did you have before doctorate? 
How many within 3 years following the doctorate? 

Has this influenced your scholarly productivity? [ ] No 

[ ] Yes 

In what ways? 


Publication Habits 

Consider your individual publication habits. 

1. Do you have a preference for certain types of publications? 

[ ] NO 

( ] Yes 

] books 

] monographs 

] refereed journals 

] non-refereed journals 

] other 

2. Do you prefer to author an article/book alone or to 

[ ] Single authorship 

[ ] Co-authorship 

[ ] Multiple authorship 

3. What percentage of your publications are: '»•■ 

% Single authored 

% Co-authored 

% Multiple authored 

What is the most important factor in determining a preference 
for a publication or other dissemination source for scholarly 


Do you have any personal goal for publications 

Per year? [ ] No [ ] Yes 

By type? [ ] No [ ] Yes 

Relative to interest? [ ] No [ ] Yes 


Research Habits 

How would you describe your research habits? 


D. Support for Research 

For each of the following groups, please describe kinds of 
support you perceive with your research activities. 

1. The University, institution in general. 

2. College/School/Dept. of Nursing (Administration). 

3. Campus colleagues, other than nurses. 

4. Nursing colleagues, on campus. 

5. Nursing colleagues, off -campus. 

IX. Techniques to further develop research output and expertise 

A. Further Development 

What methods or activities do you use to further develop 
research expertise for successful research outcomes? 

B. Recommendations ' - ' 

What would be your primary recommendation for development of 
research skills by: 

1. Colleagues in academia 

2. Practitioners in service agencies 

3 . Students . : ' 

X. Additional Comments and Closure 



General Information : Please provide information in response to the following 
items concerning the organizational factors at your institution. The questions 
have been designed to complement information provided by the established nurse 
researchers selected for study at your institution. A section for additional 
comments as been provided to include any further information which you feel is 


GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION (NLN regional classification) : Please check accuracy. 

[ ] North Atlantic [ ] Southern 

[ ] Midwest <> ^ ■' ' [ ] Western 

INSTITUTIONAL TYPE (Carnegie Classification) : Please check for accuracy. 

[ ] Research University I 

I ] Research University II 

[ ] Doctoral-Granting University I 

[ ] Doctoral-Granting University II 

[ ] Comprehensive University 

[ ] Specialized Institution (e.g., health center separate from 

main campus) , -« ^ 

INSTITUTIONAL SPONSORSHIP: Please check for accuracy. 


I ] Private ' [ ] Public 

PRIMARY INSTITUTIONAL MISSION: Please indicate the primary institutional 

mission as stated at your institution. 

[ ] Teaching/instruction 

[ ] Research 

[ ] Service 

[ ] Other 


[ ] College of Nursing 

[ ] Department of Nursing 

[ ] Division of Nursing 

[ ] School of Nursing 

[ ] Other 

NURSING DEGREE PROGRAMS OFFERED: Please indicate all that apply. 
[ ] Baccalaureate Date founded: 

[ ] Master's Degree Date founded: 

Degree (s) awarded: [ ] M.N. [ ] M.S. 

[ ] M.S.N. 


[ ] Doctorate 

Date founded: 

Degree (s) awarded: [ ] Ph.D. [ ] D.N.S., D.N.Sci. [ ] Other 

[ ] Other 

Faculty (head count) 

Students (F.T.E.) 

] { 

Baccalaureate program 
Master's degree program 
Doctoral degree program 
Other : 

STUDENT-FACULTY RATIO: Please indicate the current overall ratios, 

by program. ■ 



Baccalaureate program 
Master's degree program fS 
Doctoral degree program ' j^ 

RESEARCH REQUIREMENT: Please indicate research expectancies for faculty. 

(Check all that apply) 



Retention, contract continuation 


Other : 



Please indicate which support services are available for 
faculty use in research (non-instructional) activities. 
(Check all that apply) 

[ ] 

Computer services 

[ ] Microcomputers available for research 

[ ] Faculty accounts for research 

[ ] Student accounts for research 

Consultation (design) 

Consultation (statistical services) 

Continuing education (workshops) 

Financial support 

Library support (computer searches, inter-library loan policy) 

Physical/office space 

Release time from meetings 

Release time from instructional activities, describe: 

Research assistants 
Research coordinator 
Sabbatical leaves 
Secretarial services 

SPONSORED RESEARCH: Please indicate aggregate amounts of sponsored research 

dollars received by faculty during Fiscal Year 1985-86. 

.XX Intramural funds 

.XX Extramural funds 

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH SUPPORT: Has your school or college been awarded 

eligibility for Biomedical Research Support Grant funds in the 
past five years? 

[ ] Yes. If so, how much has been awarded during this period? 

$ .XX (Years: ) 

[ ] NO 

RESEARCH SUPPORT UNIT: Does your institution have a Center or Office for 

Nursing Research? 

[ ] Yes. If yes, please identify the structure below and complete 
Part B with information pertaining to your unit. 

[ ] Office of Nursing Research 
[ ] Center for Nursing Research 
[ ] Other: 

[ ] No. Please proceed to PART C. 


FOUNDING: Please indicate the year the RSU was established. 

EMPLOYEES: How many employees are part of the RSU? 


Support Staff 

SPECIAL SERVICES: Please describe any special services of the RSU. 


Thank you for your cooperation. 

This instrument will be collected by the researcher 

at the end of the day or may be returned in the envelope provided. 


Rose Kearney *** 3614-B SW 29th Terrace *** Gainesville, Florida 32608 *** 



INSTRUCTIONS: Please review the enclosed report and assess whether you have 
been fairly represented in the report. You may make any notations on the 
report, complete the following short answer questions, and/or any other method 
you feel appropriate. Additional pages may be attached, as needed. A return 
envelope has been provided for your use. Thank you for your time and 

1. As an Established Nurse Researcher, do you feel that you and your 

perceptions of individual and environmental characteristics have been 
accurately presented? . , - 

[ ] NO. ■ — . ' . ' • ^ 

[ ] YES. , 

Please Describe: 



2. What changes would you like to see made in the report? Please be 

3. What additional information would you wish to add? 


4. Would you like to have a minority report included? 

[ 1 NO. 

[ ] YES. (If SO, please indicate below or attach separate page.) 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Please include any additional comments. 

Rose T. Kearney *** 3709-C Simone Gardens *** Metairie, LA 70002 *** 


Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity differences 
among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. American 
Sociological Review , 39 , 596-606. 

American Nurses' Association Cabinet on Nursing Research. (1985). 
Directions for nursing research: Toward the twenty-first century 
(Report No. D-79 2M) . Kansas City, MO: American Nurses' 

American Nurses' Association Commission on Nursing Research. (1981). 
Guidelines for the investigative function of nurses . Kansas City, 
MO: American Nurses' Association. 

Anderson, E., Roth, P., & Palmer, I. S. (1985). A national survey of 
the need for doctorally prepared nurses in academic settings and 
health service agencies. Journal of Professional Nursing , 1_, 23-33. 

Andreoli, K. G., & Musser, L. A. (1984). Improving nursing faculty 
productivity. Nurse Educator , 9^ (2), 9-15. 

Astin, H. S. (1984). Academic scholarship and its rewards. In M. W. 
Steinkamp & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and 
Achievement (Vol 2, pp. 259-279). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 

Baird, S. C, Biegel, A., Bopp, A., Dolphin, N. W., Ernst, N., 

Hagedorn, M., Malkiewicz, J., Payton, R. J., & Sawatzky, G. (1985). 
Defining scholarly activity in nursing education. Journal of Nursing 
Education , 24 , 143-147. 

Baldwin, R. G., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). The academic career as a 
developmental process: Implications for higher education. Journal 
of Higher Education , 52 , 598-614. 

Batey, M. V. (1978) . Research development in university schools of 
nursing (Report No. HRP-0900587) . Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department 
of Commerce National Technical Information Service. 

Batey, M. V. (1981). Programmatic structure for research productivity. 
In E.C. Giblin (Ed.), Fifth National Forum on Doctoral Education in 
Nursing (pp. 53-69). Seattle: University of Washington School of 

Batey, M. V. (1985). Nursing research productivity: The University of 
Washington experience. Western Journal of Nursing Research , 7, 
489-493. ~ 



Bayer, A. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1977). Career age and research- 
professional activities of academic scientists. Journal of Higher 
Education , 48 , 259-282. 

Behymer, C. E., & Blackburn, R. T. (1975). Environmental and personal 
attributes related to faculty productivity . Ann Arbor, MI: 
University of Michigan. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 
104 317) 

Benner, P. (1985). Quality of life: A phenomenological perspective on 
explanation, prediction, and understanding in nursing science. 
Advances in Nursing Science , 8^(1) , 1-14. 

Blackburn, R. T., Behymer, C. E., & Hall, D. E. (1978). Research note: 
Correlates of faculty publications. Sociology of Education , 51 , 

Blackburn, R. T., & Havighurst, R. J. (1979). Career patterns of U.S. 
male academic social scientists. Higher Education , 8^, 553-572. 

Blau, P. M., & Margulies, R. Z. (1974-75). The reputation of American 
professional schools. Change , 6^(10), 42-47. 

Bloch, D. (1985). A conceptualization of nursing research and nursing 
science. In J. C. McCloskey & H. K. Grace (Ed.), Current issues in 
nursing (2nd ed., pp. 124-138). Boston: Blackwell Scientific 
Publications. . „. ... ^ ^ >- *. ^ . 

Boice, R., & Johnson, K. (1984). Perception and practice of writing 
for publication by faculty at a doctoral-granting university. 
Research in Higher Education , 21 , 33-43. 

Brimmer, P. F., Skoner, M. M., Pender, N. J., Williams, C. A., Fleming, 
J. W., & Werley, H. H. (1983). Nurses with doctoral degrees: 
Education and employment characteristics. Research in Nursing and 
Health , 6, 157-165. 

Brown, J. S., Tanner, C. A., & Padrick, K. P. (1984). Nursing's search 
for scientific knowledge. Nursing Research , 33 , 26-32. 

Cameron, S. W., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). Sponsorship and academic 
career success. Journal of Higher Education , 52 , 369-377. 

Campbell, J. P., Daft, R. L. , & Hulin, C. L. (1983). What to study: 
Generating and developing research questions . Beverly Hills, CA: 
Sage . 


Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. (1976) . A 
classification of institutions of higher education (rev. ed.). 
Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Foundation. 

Cattell, R. B., & Drevdahl, J. E. (1955). A comparison of the 

personality profile (16 P.P.) of eminent researchers with that of 
eminent teachers and administrators, and of the general population. 
British Journal of Psychology , 46 , 248-261. 

Chamings, P. A. (1984). Ranking the nursing schools. Nursing Outlook , 
32, 238-239. 

Clark, B. R. (1984). The organizational conception. In B.R. Clark 
(Ed.), Perspectives on higher education (pp. 106-131). Berkeley, 
CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Clark, S. A. (1973). Research and publication in the small college: A 
comparative study of faculty members' perceptions and attitudes. The 
Journal of Educational Research , 66 , 328-333. 

Clemente, F. (1973) . Early career determinants of research 
productivity. American Journal of Sociology , 79 , 409-419. 

Cole, J. R. (1979). Fair science; Women in the scientific community . 
New York: Free Press. 

Cole, J. R. (1981). Women in science. American Scientist , 69 , 
385-391. - - 

Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: 

Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women 
scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement , 2^, 217-258. 

Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: A 
study on the operation of the reward system in science. American 
Sociological Review , 32 , 377-390. 

Copp, L. (1981) . Nursing research; Position statement (Report No. 
AACN-Pub-81-4) . Washington, DC; American Association of Colleges of 
Nursing. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 219 986) 

Cox, W. M., & Catt, V. (1977). Productivity ratings of graduate 
programs in psychology based on publication in the journals of the 
American Psychological Association. American Psychologist , 32 , 

Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study 
of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review , 30 , 


Creswell, J. W. (1985). Faculty research performance; Lessons from 
the sciences and the social sciences (ASHE-ERIC Report No. 4) , 
Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. 

Creswell, J. W., & Bean, J, P. (1981). Research output, socialization, 
and the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education , 15 , 69-91. 

Duffy, M. E. (1986) . Characteristics of a top-ranked school survey; 
An evaluation instrument for schools of nursing (Pub. No. 41-1984). 
New York: National League for Nursing. 

Eash, M. (1983) . Educational research productivity of institutions of 
higher education. American Educational Research Journal , 20 , 5-12. 

Fagin, C. M. (1982) . The quality of nursing journals as rated by deans 
of nursing schools. Heart & Lung: The Journal of Critical Care , 11 , 

Fawcett, J. (1979) . Integrating research into the faculty workload. 
Nursing Outlook , 27 , 259-262. 

Fawcett, J. (1984) . Hallmarks of success in nursing research. 
Advances in Nursing Science , 7^(1), 1-11. 

Fawcett, J. (1985). Theory: Basis for the study and practice of 
nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education , 24 , 226-229. 

Felton, G., & Yeaworth, R. (1985). Focused programs of research. 
Journal of Professional Nursing , 1^, 187. 

Finkelstein, M. (1982, March) . Faculty colleagueship patterns and 
research productivity . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 
American Educational Research Association, New York. (ERIC Document 
Reproductive Service No. ED 216 633) 

Finkelstein, M. J. (1984) . The American academic profession . 
Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. 

Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A 
critical review. Social Studies of Science , 13 , 285-305. 

Friedlander, F. (1971) . Performance and orientation structures of 
research scientists. Organizational Behavioral and Human 
Performance , 6^, 169-183. 

Frieze, I. H., & Hanusa, B. H. (1984). Women scientists: Overcoming 
barriers. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 2, 139-163. 


Fulton, O., & Trow, M. (1974). Research activity in American higher 
education. Sociology of Education , 47 , 29-73. 

Glenn, N. D., & Villemez, W. (1970). The productivity of sociologists 
at 45 American universities. American Sociologist , 5^, 244-252. 

Gortner, S. R. (1983) , The history and philosophy of nursing science 
and research. Advances in Nursing Science , 5^(2), 1-8. 

Gortner, S. R. (1985). The University of California at San Francisco 
research environment. Western Journal of Nursing Research , 7, 

Gourman, J. (1980) . . The Gourman report: A rating of graduate and 
professional programs in American and international universities . 
Los Angeles: National Educational Standards. 

Gourman, J. (1983) . The Gourman report; A rating of graduate and 

professional programs in American and international universities (2nd 
ed.). Los Angeles: National Educational Standards. 

Gvha, E. G. (1985). The context of emergent paradigm research. In Y. 
S. Lincoln (Ed.), Organizational theory and inquiry (pp. 79-104). 
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Gunne, G. M., & Stout, W. D. (1980). Productivity and publication 
patterns in departments of educational administration. Journal of 
Educational Administration , 18 , 140-147. 

Hagerty, B. (1986). A second look at mentors. Nursing Outlook , 34, 
16-19, 24. 

Hall, D. E. (1975). Determinants of faculty publication productivity 
at four-year colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International , 36A, 
4290A. (University Microfilms No. 75-29,234) 

Hall, D. E ., & Blackburn, R. T. (1975). Determinants of faculty 
publication productivity at four-year colleges . Paper presented at 
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 
New York. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 117 994) 

Hamovitch, W. , & Morgenstern, R. D. (1977). Children and productivity 
of academic women. Journal of Higher Education , 48, 633-645. 

Hargens, L. L., McCann, J. C, & Reskin, B. F. (1978). Productivity 
and reproductivity: Fertility and professional achievement among 
research scientists. Social Forces, 57, 154-163. 


Havelock, R. G. (1971) . Planning for innovation through dissemination 
and utilization of knowledge . Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social 
Research, University of Michigan. 

Hayter, J. (1984) . Institutional sources of articles published in 13 
journals, 1978-1982. Nursing Research , 33 , 357-362. 

Hayter, J., & Rice, P. (1979). Institutional sources of articles 
published in the American Journal of Nursing, Nursing Outlook, and 
Nursing Research. Nursing Research , 28 , 205-209. 

Holley, J. W. (1977) . Tenure and research productivity. Research in 
Higher Education , 6^, 181-192. 

Holt, F. M. (1973). A study of the relationship of selected variables 
to attitudes of nursing faculty toward research and theory 
development. Dissertation Abstracts International , 34B , 1608-B. 
(University Microfilms International No. 73-23,574) 

Humphreys, L. G. (1984) . Women with doctorates in science and 
engineering. Advances in Motivation and Achievement , 2^, 197-216. 

Jauch, L. R., & Glueck, W. F. (1975). Evaluation of university 
professors' research performance. Management Science , 22 , 66-75. 

Jolly, P. (1983). Datagram: Physician faculty involvement in 
research. Journal of Medical Education , 58 , 73-76. 

Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1979). Organization and management: 
A systems and contingency approach (3rd ed.). New York: 

Kasten, K. L. (1984) . Tenure and merit pay as rewards for research, 
teaching, and service at a research university. Journal of Higher 
Education , 55, 500-514. 

Kimberly, J. R. (1976) . Organizational size and the structuralist 
perspective: A review, critique, and proposal. Administrative 
Science Quarterly , 21 , 571-595. 

Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1985). Reliability and validity in 

qualitative research . Sage University Paper series on Qualitative 
Research Methods, Vol 1. Severely Hills, CA: Sage. 

Knorr, K. D., Mittermeir, R., Aichholzer, G., & Waller, G. (1979). 
Individual publication productivity as a social position effect in 
academic and industrial research units. In F. M. Andrews (Ed.), 
Scientific productivity (pp. 55-94). Cambridge, England: Cambridge 
University Press. 


Ladd, E. C. (1979). The work experience of American college 

professors: Some data and an argument. Current Issues in Higher 
Education, 1979 , 2, 2-12. 

Lane, E. B., Lagodna, G. E., Brooks, B. B., Long, N. J., Parsons, M. 
A., Fox, M. R., S Strickland, 0. L. (1981). Faculty development 
activities. Nursing Outlook , 29 , 112-118. 

Lia-Hoagberg, B. (1985). Comparison of professional activities of 
nurse doctorates and other women academics. Nursing Research , 34 , 

Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). The substance of the emergent paradigm: 

Implications for researchers. In Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Organizational 
theory and inquiry (pp. 137-157). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Long, J. S. (1978). Productivity and academic position in the 
scientific career. American Sociological Review , 43 , 889-908. 

Long, J. S., & McGinnis, R. (1981). Organizational context and 

scientific productivity. American Sociological Review , 46 , 422-442. 

Manis, J. D. (1950). Some academic influences upon publication 
productivity. Social Focus , 29 , 267-272. 

Marella, M. M. (1974) . Factors influencing the research activities of 
faculty in graduate programs in nursing. Dissertation Abstracts 
International , 34B , 5535-B. (University Microfilms No. 74-11,803) 

Margulies, R. Z., & Blau, P. M. (1973). America's leading professional 
schools. Change , 5^(2), 21-27. '- ': 

May, K. M., Meleis, A. I., & Winstead-Fry, P. (1982). Mentorship for 
scholarliness: Opportunities and dilemmas. Nursing Outlook , 30 , 

McCallum, K. (1984). Research/publication productivity of U.S. speech 
communication departments. The Southern Speech Communication 
Journal , 49, 135-142. 

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1984). Research in education: A 
conceptual approach . Boston: Little, Brown. 

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science. Science , 159 , 

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis . 
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 


Moody, L. E., Kearney, R. T., & Conlin, M. (1987). Use of Alpha, 
theta, and bootstrap in reliability and validity testing of an 
instrument to measure correlates of successful research. Manuscript 
submitted for publication. 

Murphy, M. I. (1985). A descriptive study of faculty tenure in 
baccalaureate and graduate programs in nursing. Journal of 
Professional Nursing , 1^, 14-22. 

Murphy, S. 0. (1985). Contexts for scientific creativity: 

Applications to nursing. Image; The Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 
17 f 103-107. ., . 

National Center for Nursing Research. (1985, October). The National 
Center for Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health program 
information. (Available from National Center for Nursing Research, 
National Institutes of Health, Building 38A, Room 2E17, Bethesda, MD 

Neumann, Y. (1979). Research productivity of tenured and nontenured 
faculty in U.S. universities: A comparative study of four fields and 
policy implications. The Journal of Educational Administration , 17 ^ 

Nieswiadomy, R. M. (1984). Nurse educators' involvement in research. 
Journal of Nursing Education , 23 , 52-56. 

O'Shea, H. S. (1986). Faculty workload: Myths and realities. Journal 
of Nursing Education , 25 , 20-25. 

Ostmoe, P. M. (1982). Correlates of university nurse faculty 

publication productivity. Dissertation Abstracts International , 43A , 
2570A. (University Microfilms NO. 82-29,954) 

Ostmoe, P. M. (1986). Correlates of university nurse faculty 

publication productivity. Journal of Nursing Education , 25 , 207-212. 

Over, R. (1982) . Does research productivity decline with age? Higher 
Education , 11 , 510-520. 

Patton, M. Q. (1980) . Qualitative evaluation methods . Beverly Hills, 
CA: Sage. 

Pearse, W. H., Peeples, E. H., Flora, R. E., & Freeman, R. (1976). 
Medical school faculty productivity. Journal of Medical Education , 
51, 201-202. 

Pelz, D. C, & Andrews, F. M. (1976). Scientists in organizations: 
Productive climates for research and development (rev. ed.). Ann 
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. 


Pellino, G. R. , Blackburn, R. T., & Boberg, A, L. (1984). The 

dimensions of academic scholarship: Faculty and administrator views. 
Research in Higher Education , 20 , 103-115. 

Phillips, T. P. (1973). A sociological study of selected factors 
associated with the productivity patterns of nurses with doctoral 
degrees. Dissertation Abstracts International , 34A , 1377-A. 
(University Microfilms No. 73-21,638. 

Polit, D., & Hungler, B. (1983). Nursing research: Principles and 
methods (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott. 

Pranulis, M. F. (1984). Environmental influences on nurse faculty 

research productivity at university schools of nursing. Dissertation 
Abstracts International , 45B , 3774B. (University Microfilms No. 

Pranulis, M. F., & Gortner, S. P. (1985). Characteristics of 

productive research environments in nursing. Western Journal of 
Nursing Research , 7^, 127-131. 

Reskin, B. F. (1977). Scientific productivity and the reward structure 
of science. American Sociological Review , 42 , 491-504. 

Reskin, B. F. (1978). Scientific productivity, sex, and location in 
the institution of science. American Journal of Sociology , 83 , 

Roe, A. (1952). A psychologist examines 64 eminent scientists. 
Scientific American , 187 (5) , 21-25. 

Roe, A. (1965). Changes in scientific activities with age. Science , 
150 , 313-318. 

Sandelowski, M. (1986) . The problem of rigor in scientific research. 
Advances in Nursing Science , 8^(3), 27-37. 

Silverman, R. J. (1984). Publishing patterns evidenced in the core 
higher education journals. Research in Higher Education , 21 , 

Simon, R. J. (1974) . The work habits of eminent scholars. Sociology 
of Work and Occupations , 1^, 327-335. 

Smith, R., & Fiedler, F. E. (1971). The measurement of scholarly work: 
A critical review of the literature. Educational Record , 52 , 


Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview . New York: Holt, 
Rinehart, and Winston. 

Sorensen, G. E., Van Ort, S. R., & Weinstein, A. C. (1985). Faculty 
mobility in baccalaureate and higher degree nursing programs in 
Research I and II universities. Journal of Professional Nursing , 1^, 

Stevenson, J. S., & Woods, N. F. (1986). Nursing science and 

contemporary science: Emerging paradigms. Setting the Agenda for 
the Year 2000: Knowledge Development in Nursing (Report No. G-170 3M 
5/86) . Kansas City, MO: American Academy of Nursing. 

Sweeney, M. A. (1985J . Clinical nursing research: Exposing the myths. 
In J. C. McCloskey & H. K. Grace (Eds.), Current issues in nursing 
(2nd ed., pp. 161-170). Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 

Taylor, C. W., & Ellison, R. L. (1967). Biographical predictors of 
scientific performance. Science , 155 , 1075-1080. 

Walton, J. M. (1982). Research activity and scholarly productivity 
among counselor educators. Counselor Education and Supervision , 21 , 

Waltz, C. F., Nelson, B., & Chambers, S. B. (1985). Assigning 
publication credits. Nursing Outlook , 33 , 233-238. 

Waltz, C- F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (1984). Measurement in 
nursing research . Philadelphia: Davis. 

Wandelt, M. A., Duffy, M. E., & Pollock, S. E. (1985). Profile of a 
top-ranked school of nursing (Pub. No. 41-1990) . New York: National 
League for Nursing. ■ , , 

Wanner, R. A., Lewis, L. S., & Gregorio, D. I. (1980, August). 
Research productivity in academia: A comparative study of the 
sciences, social sciences and humanities . Revised version of a paper 
presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological 
Association, New York. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 
197 640) 

Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis . Beverly Hills, CA: 

Werley, H. H., Murphy, P. A., Gosch, S. M., Gottesmann, H., S Newcomb, 
B. J. (1981). Research publication credit assignment: Nurses' 
views. Research in Nursing and Health , £, 261-279. 


West, C. K. (1978). Productivity ratings of institutions based on 
publications in the journals of the American Educational Research 
Association: 1970-1976. Educational Researcher , 1_(2) , 13-14. 

Wigfield, A., & Braskamp, L. A. (1985). Age and personal investment in 
work. Advances in Motivation and Achievement , A_, 297-331. 

Zuckerman, H. (1967). Nobel laureates in science: Patterns of 

productivity, collaboration, and authorship. American Sociological 
Review , 32, 391-403. 

Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite. New York: Free Press. 



' ' 

f 1 


The author was born on July 8, 1951, in New York. She received a 
Bachelor of Science degree from Keuka College in 1973 and a Master of 
Nursing degree from the University of Florida in 1976. The author has 
held a variety of academic and clinical nursing positions in Florida 
and Louisiana. Currently, she is an Assistant Professor at the 
Louisiana State University Medical Center School of Nursing in New 
Orleans, Louisiana. 

1 } 


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it 
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully 
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy. 

r-i ^-X 


Moody , Ch a i rman 
Professor of Nursing 

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it 
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully 
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy. 

Lois J. Malasanos 
Professor of Nursing 

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it 
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully 
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy. 

Martha J. Snider 

Associate Professor of Nursing 

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it 
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully 
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy. 

/James L. Wattenbarger 
Professor of Educationa 

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it 
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully 
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy. 

(2 [/C(J-ct 

Sally A. Hutchinson 

Associate Professor of Nursing 

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College 
of Nursing and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial 
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 

May, 1987 

Dean, College of Nursing 

Dean, Graduate School 

*' , 

■..». ■■V.--' .*->- 

■ - t 


3 1262 08554 7536